[[email protected]]

About 2 months ago my Shure v15mr cartridge suddenly lost the right
channel. Try as I might I couldn=92t figure out why and since for a long
time it was being used with an old stylus that I had reclaimed from
the bottom of a drawer after a newer one broke, I thought to buy a
cheap new cartridge to play my Lps when the occasional mood struck me.

You see heretofore about 90% of my listening was the music available
through the local cable tv provider: digital, clear, noise free.
Horrors ! you say? Thing of it is that my system is so good that even
that source sounds good a lot of the time. Anyhow, I bought a Shure
m97xe from Jerry Raskin=92s Needle doctor and installed it in the
turntable. Turns out that the original lost channel was probably due
to a clip coming loose and touching the ground clip on the cartridge
as the new one gave the very same problem until I discovered that was
the problem.

Well the new cartridge was a startling revelation in smoothness, high
frequencies that seemed to go on forever and an overall fullness and
rightness to the sound that was most beguiling. I suddenly realized
why the debate about analog versus digital refuses to go away and this
with a cartridge that was not a moving coil or even counted among the
best. I still believe that digital is the better choice now because
there is still the annoyance of dealing with analog=92s inherent
nuisances- cleaning the stylus after almost every band, the pops and
clicks well you already know them. But I also know that if some how
these things could be ameliorated to a non issue I would drop digital
in a heartbeat, analog sounded that good. ( Don=92t mention cleaning
brushes, solutions etc, I=92ve been that route in my Sumiko blue point
special days, and they add mostly nuisance value in my opinion.) So I
continue to listen mainly to digital, but ah! that analog sound, an
oasis in the digital desert=85may be some day=85.

The System?

No name portable cd player and cable provider supplied cable box
AR es1 turntable with Audioquest Pt6 arm and new Shure m97xe
Conrad-johnson Pv5 preamp
Bi-amped Quad Esl 63/Gradient speakers
Quad 606 amps with Gradient active x-over (modified ala MT Audio
Design)

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message


About 2 months ago my Shure v15mr cartridge suddenly lost
the right channel. Try as I might I couldn=92t figure out
why

That seems strage. Cartridges are known to have their windings open up. Its
one of the simplest problems to conclusively diagnose with a simple ohm
meter check.

and since for a long time it was being used with an
old stylus that I had reclaimed from
the bottom of a drawer after a newer one broke, I thought
to buy a cheap new cartridge to play my Lps when the
occasional mood struck me.

A Shure M97xe seems like a likely replacement.

You see heretofore about 90% of my listening was the
music available through the local cable tv provider:
digital, clear, noise free.

Also heavily lossy encoded in all liklihood. Thus this thread is not a LP
versus digital thread, but rather a private media versus commodity program
provider thread.


Horrors ! you say? Thing of
it is that my system is so good that even that source
sounds good a lot of the time. Anyhow, I bought a Shure
m97xe from Jerry Raskin=92s Needle doctor and installed
it in the turntable. Turns out that the original lost
channel was probably due
to a clip coming loose and touching the ground clip on
the cartridge

IOW there was no problem with your cartridge, and you misdiagnosed a lose
wire as a bad cartridge?

Not so good.

as the new one gave the very same problem until I
discovered that was the problem.

Ouch!

Well the new cartridge was a startling revelation in
smoothness, high frequencies that seemed to go on
forever and an overall fullness and rightness to the
sound that was most beguiling.

Did you a adjust the cartridge capacitive loading for the new cartrdige?

I suddenly realized
why the debate about analog versus digital refuses to go
away

In this case the alleged cause of the problems was misdiagnosed twice.

(1) A simple loose connection was misdiagnosed as a bad cartridge.

(2) A simple case of highly lossy-compressed music from a commodity source
of recordings was confused with the best that digital has to offer.

and this with a cartridge that was not a moving coil
or even counted among the best.

Depends on who you beleive.

I still believe that
digital is the better choice now because there is still
the annoyance of dealing with analog=92s inherent
nuisances- cleaning the stylus after almost every band,
the pops and clicks well you already know them. But I
also know that if some how these things could be
ameliorated to a non issue I would drop digital in a
heartbeat, analog sounded that good. ( Don=92t mention
cleaning brushes, solutions etc, I=92ve been that route
in my Sumiko blue point special days, and they add mostly
nuisance value in my opinion.) So I continue to listen
mainly to digital, but ah! that analog sound, an oasis in
the digital desert=85may be some day=85.

The problem is that you're not comparing to the best digital or even good
digital. Cable companies are legendary for their lack of interest in good
technical quality. Why would their music service be any different?


The System?

No name portable cd player and cable provider supplied
cable box
AR es1 turntable with Audioquest Pt6 arm and new Shure
m97xe Conrad-johnson Pv5 preamp
Bi-amped Quad Esl 63/Gradient speakers
Quad 606 amps with Gradient active x-over (modified ala
MT Audio Design)

Seems like a system that could make the sound of poorly made
lossy-compressed recordings pretty obvious.

Try listening to some good CDs.

[Harry Lavo]

wrote in message
...
About 2 months ago my Shure v15mr cartridge suddenly lost the right
channel. Try as I might I couldn=92t figure out why and since for a long
time it was being used with an old stylus that I had reclaimed from
the bottom of a drawer after a newer one broke, I thought to buy a
cheap new cartridge to play my Lps when the occasional mood struck me.

You see heretofore about 90% of my listening was the music available
through the local cable tv provider: digital, clear, noise free.
Horrors ! you say? Thing of it is that my system is so good that even
that source sounds good a lot of the time. Anyhow, I bought a Shure
m97xe from Jerry Raskin=92s Needle doctor and installed it in the
turntable. Turns out that the original lost channel was probably due
to a clip coming loose and touching the ground clip on the cartridge
as the new one gave the very same problem until I discovered that was
the problem.

Well the new cartridge was a startling revelation in smoothness, high
frequencies that seemed to go on forever and an overall fullness and
rightness to the sound that was most beguiling. I suddenly realized
why the debate about analog versus digital refuses to go away and this
with a cartridge that was not a moving coil or even counted among the
best. I still believe that digital is the better choice now because
there is still the annoyance of dealing with analog=92s inherent
nuisances- cleaning the stylus after almost every band, the pops and
clicks well you already know them. But I also know that if some how
these things could be ameliorated to a non issue I would drop digital
in a heartbeat, analog sounded that good. ( Don=92t mention cleaning
brushes, solutions etc, I=92ve been that route in my Sumiko blue point
special days, and they add mostly nuisance value in my opinion.) So I
continue to listen mainly to digital, but ah! that analog sound, an
oasis in the digital desert=85may be some day=85.

The System?

No name portable cd player and cable provider supplied cable box
AR es1 turntable with Audioquest Pt6 arm and new Shure m97xe
Conrad-johnson Pv5 preamp
Bi-amped Quad Esl 63/Gradient speakers
Quad 606 amps with Gradient active x-over (modified ala MT Audio
Design)


That particular Shure is a "Best Buy" among today's lower-priced cartridges
(along with an Audio Technica) and should serve you well. You've got a very
musical system and take the time to rediscover more of your favorite old
records....the pleasure will not diminish.

For some of us, the sound of analog is enough to make us put up with the
nusances, while for others the nuisances outweigh the sound, and yet others
adhere to the insistence that digital must sound better because of it's
specs. Personally, I fall somewhere between camps one and two, with my
listening at times mostly digital, at other times mostly LP or tape; but
nobody will ever convince me that analog is inferior to digital in sound
quality.

[Sonnova]

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 07:29:44 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

wrote in message



snip
Well the new cartridge was a startling revelation in
smoothness, high frequencies that seemed to go on
forever and an overall fullness and rightness to the
sound that was most beguiling.

Did you a adjust the cartridge capacitive loading for the new cartrdige?

Not necessary for MM cartridges with most preamps. Low output MC cartridges,
on the other hand, are a different story.

I suddenly realized
why the debate about analog versus digital refuses to go
away

In this case the alleged cause of the problems was misdiagnosed twice.

(1) A simple loose connection was misdiagnosed as a bad cartridge.

(2) A simple case of highly lossy-compressed music from a commodity source
of recordings was confused with the best that digital has to offer.

and this with a cartridge that was not a moving coil
or even counted among the best.

Depends on who you beleive.

I still believe that
digital is the better choice now because there is still
the annoyance of dealing with analog=92s inherent
nuisances- cleaning the stylus after almost every band,
the pops and clicks well you already know them. But I
also know that if some how these things could be
ameliorated to a non issue I would drop digital in a
heartbeat, analog sounded that good. ( Don=92t mention
cleaning brushes, solutions etc, I=92ve been that route
in my Sumiko blue point special days, and they add mostly
nuisance value in my opinion.) So I continue to listen
mainly to digital, but ah! that analog sound, an oasis in
the digital desert=85may be some day=85.

The problem is that you're not comparing to the best digital or even good
digital. Cable companies are legendary for their lack of interest in good
technical quality. Why would their music service be any different?

Obviously. As I've stated in the past, modern digital recordings can be
superb and should be better, overall than almost any vinyl. But the best
vinyl is very "musical" indeed, and within the boundaries of vinyl's inherent
physical limitations (surface noise, limited dynamic range, propensity to
warp, be off-center, etc.) some vinyl records can sound much more real than
the same material released on CD or even SACD or hi-res digital. IOW, digital
is NO panacea, but generally speaking, it is much more ACCURATE than
analog/vinyl could ever hope to be.

Of course, that doesn't, in any way, disqualify vinyl as a satisfying music
source. In fact, even old 78's can be a satisfying musical source.

The System?

No name portable cd player and cable provider supplied
cable box
AR es1 turntable with Audioquest Pt6 arm and new Shure
m97xe Conrad-johnson Pv5 preamp
Bi-amped Quad Esl 63/Gradient speakers
Quad 606 amps with Gradient active x-over (modified ala
MT Audio Design)

Seems like a system that could make the sound of poorly made
lossy-compressed recordings pretty obvious.

Try listening to some good CDs.

And with that turntable and arm setup (I have an AudioQuest PT-8 (physically
the same arm as the PT-6 with different wiring and cable), good vinyl
reproduction should be possible as well. I think a better CD player would be
in order, though, given the high quality of the rest of your system.

[Sonnova]

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 08:16:20 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):

wrote in message
...
About 2 months ago my Shure v15mr cartridge suddenly lost the right
channel. Try as I might I couldn=92t figure out why and since for a long
time it was being used with an old stylus that I had reclaimed from
the bottom of a drawer after a newer one broke, I thought to buy a
cheap new cartridge to play my Lps when the occasional mood struck me.

You see heretofore about 90% of my listening was the music available
through the local cable tv provider: digital, clear, noise free.
Horrors ! you say? Thing of it is that my system is so good that even
that source sounds good a lot of the time. Anyhow, I bought a Shure
m97xe from Jerry Raskin=92s Needle doctor and installed it in the
turntable. Turns out that the original lost channel was probably due
to a clip coming loose and touching the ground clip on the cartridge
as the new one gave the very same problem until I discovered that was
the problem.

Well the new cartridge was a startling revelation in smoothness, high
frequencies that seemed to go on forever and an overall fullness and
rightness to the sound that was most beguiling. I suddenly realized
why the debate about analog versus digital refuses to go away and this
with a cartridge that was not a moving coil or even counted among the
best. I still believe that digital is the better choice now because
there is still the annoyance of dealing with analog=92s inherent
nuisances- cleaning the stylus after almost every band, the pops and
clicks well you already know them. But I also know that if some how
these things could be ameliorated to a non issue I would drop digital
in a heartbeat, analog sounded that good. ( Don=92t mention cleaning
brushes, solutions etc, I=92ve been that route in my Sumiko blue point
special days, and they add mostly nuisance value in my opinion.) So I
continue to listen mainly to digital, but ah! that analog sound, an
oasis in the digital desert=85may be some day=85.

The System?

No name portable cd player and cable provider supplied cable box
AR es1 turntable with Audioquest Pt6 arm and new Shure m97xe
Conrad-johnson Pv5 preamp
Bi-amped Quad Esl 63/Gradient speakers
Quad 606 amps with Gradient active x-over (modified ala MT Audio
Design)


That particular Shure is a "Best Buy" among today's lower-priced cartridges
(along with an Audio Technica) and should serve you well. You've got a very
musical system and take the time to rediscover more of your favorite old
records....the pleasure will not diminish.

For some of us, the sound of analog is enough to make us put up with the
nusances,

Here, here!

while for others the nuisances outweigh the sound, and yet others
adhere to the insistence that digital must sound better because of it's
specs.

Mores the pity for them!

Personally, I fall somewhere between camps one and two, with my
listening at times mostly digital, at other times mostly LP or tape; but
nobody will ever convince me that analog is inferior to digital in sound
quality.

Nor me. At it's best, analog is very good. I have many records of which I
also have the CD of the same performance. In almost every case, the LP sounds
better than the CD, and even sounds better than the SACD. Of course, these
recordings are almost all 50-year old analog recordings on RCA and Mercury to
begin with.

One exception is JVC's XRCD process. I have an RCA recording of Prokofiev's
"Lt. Kije" on JVC XRCD that sounds so good that it makes me wonder exactly
what has actually advanced in the realm of recording in the last 50 years
other than the media?

[UC]

On Oct 24, 11:16=A0am, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
wrote in message

...



About 2 months ago my Shure v15mr cartridge suddenly lost the right
channel. Try as I might I couldn=3D92t figure out why and since for a l=
ong
time it was being used with an old stylus that I had reclaimed from
the bottom of a drawer after a newer one broke, I thought to buy a
cheap new cartridge to play my Lps when the occasional mood struck me.

You see heretofore about 90% of my listening was the music available
through the local cable tv provider: digital, clear, noise free.
Horrors ! you say? Thing of it is that my system is so good that even
that source sounds good a lot of the time. Anyhow, I bought a Shure
m97xe from Jerry =A0Raskin=3D92s Needle doctor and installed it in the
turntable. Turns out that the original lost channel was probably due
to a clip coming loose and touching the ground clip on the cartridge
as the new one gave the very same problem until I discovered that was
the problem.

Well the new cartridge was a startling revelation in smoothness, high
frequencies that =A0seemed to go on forever and an overall fullness and
rightness to the sound that was most beguiling. I suddenly realized
why the debate about analog versus digital refuses to go away and this
with a cartridge that was not a moving coil or even counted among the
best. I still believe that digital is the better choice now because
there is still the annoyance of dealing with analog=3D92s inherent
nuisances- cleaning the stylus after almost every band, the pops and
clicks well you already know them. But I also know that if some how
these things could be ameliorated to a non issue I would drop digital
in a heartbeat, analog sounded that good. ( Don=3D92t mention cleaning
brushes, solutions etc, I=3D92ve been that route in my Sumiko blue poin=
t
special days, and they add mostly nuisance value in my opinion.) So I
continue to listen mainly to digital, but ah! that analog sound, an
oasis in the digital desert=3D85may be some day=3D85.

The System?

No name portable cd player and cable provider supplied cable box
AR es1 turntable with Audioquest Pt6 arm and new Shure m97xe
Conrad-johnson Pv5 preamp
Bi-amped Quad Esl 63/Gradient speakers
Quad 606 amps with Gradient active x-over (modified ala MT Audio
Design)

That particular Shure is a "Best Buy" among today's lower-priced cartridg=
es
(along with an Audio Technica) and should serve you well. =A0You've got a=
very
musical system and take the time to rediscover more of your favorite old
records....the pleasure will not diminish.

For some of us, the sound of analog is enough to make us put up with the
nusances, while for others the nuisances outweigh the sound, and yet othe=
rs
adhere to the insistence that digital must sound better because of it's
specs. =A0Personally, I fall somewhere between camps one and two, with my
listening at times mostly digital, at other times mostly LP or tape; but
nobody will ever convince me that analog is inferior to digital in sound
quality.

The limitations of the LP are well-known. I had a very good rig
(Thorens TD-125 Mk II, Magnepan arm; my last cartridge was the Stax.
Before that I had owned, among others, the ADC XLM-2, Shure V15 III,
Ortofon MC-20, Dynavector Ruby, etc.). I grew to hate the LP with a
passion. The first few minutes on a side are always good....but when
you get past half-way the distortion just intrudes. By the end of the
side I hated every LP. Add to that warps, eccentricity, non-fill,
ticks and pops...I HATE LPs!

That does not mean that analogue itself is the problem. I'm quite sure
that 30ips master tapes sound fabulous...but LPs are a FAR cry from
that!

[ScottW]

On Oct 24, 8:16=A0am, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
wrote in message

...





About 2 months ago my Shure v15mr cartridge suddenly lost the right
channel. Try as I might I couldn=3D92t figure out why and since for a l=
ong
time it was being used with an old stylus that I had reclaimed from
the bottom of a drawer after a newer one broke, I thought to buy a
cheap new cartridge to play my Lps when the occasional mood struck me.

You see heretofore about 90% of my listening was the music available
through the local cable tv provider: digital, clear, noise free.
Horrors ! you say? Thing of it is that my system is so good that even
that source sounds good a lot of the time. Anyhow, I bought a Shure
m97xe from Jerry =A0Raskin=3D92s Needle doctor and installed it in the
turntable. Turns out that the original lost channel was probably due
to a clip coming loose and touching the ground clip on the cartridge
as the new one gave the very same problem until I discovered that was
the problem.

Well the new cartridge was a startling revelation in smoothness, high
frequencies that =A0seemed to go on forever and an overall fullness and
rightness to the sound that was most beguiling. I suddenly realized
why the debate about analog versus digital refuses to go away and this
with a cartridge that was not a moving coil or even counted among the
best. I still believe that digital is the better choice now because
there is still the annoyance of dealing with analog=3D92s inherent
nuisances- cleaning the stylus after almost every band, the pops and
clicks well you already know them. But I also know that if some how
these things could be ameliorated to a non issue I would drop digital
in a heartbeat, analog sounded that good. ( Don=3D92t mention cleaning
brushes, solutions etc, I=3D92ve been that route in my Sumiko blue poin=
t
special days, and they add mostly nuisance value in my opinion.) So I
continue to listen mainly to digital, but ah! that analog sound, an
oasis in the digital desert=3D85may be some day=3D85.

The System?

No name portable cd player and cable provider supplied cable box
AR es1 turntable with Audioquest Pt6 arm and new Shure m97xe
Conrad-johnson Pv5 preamp
Bi-amped Quad Esl 63/Gradient speakers
Quad 606 amps with Gradient active x-over (modified ala MT Audio
Design)

That particular Shure is a "Best Buy" among today's lower-priced cartridg=
es
(along with an Audio Technica) and should serve you well. =A0You've got a=
very
musical system and take the time to rediscover more of your favorite old
records....the pleasure will not diminish.

For some of us, the sound of analog is enough to make us put up with the
nusances, while for others the nuisances outweigh the sound, and yet othe=
rs
adhere to the insistence that digital must sound better because of it's
specs. =A0Personally, I fall somewhere between camps one and two, with my
listening at times mostly digital, at other times mostly LP or tape; but
nobody will ever convince me that analog is inferior to digital in sound
quality.

I agree completely. Good analogue can be just as good, and on select
recordings, sometimes better.

Classic Records no longer shows the Allman Brothers Live at the
Filmore in their catalog but I see it still available at retailers.
Anyway, it's the best version of that recording I've ever heard.

Vinyl is certainly more of a challenge to get good sound from than
digital, but that's part of the fun.

ScottW

[David E. Bath]

In article ,
"Harry Lavo" writes:

For some of us, the sound of analog is enough to make us put up with the
nusances, while for others the nuisances outweigh the sound, and yet others
adhere to the insistence that digital must sound better because of it's
specs. Personally, I fall somewhere between camps one and two, with my
listening at times mostly digital, at other times mostly LP or tape; but
nobody will ever convince me that analog is inferior to digital in sound
quality.

Seems you left one one category of listener: those who lived with LPs
for many, many years, and have experienced with the best that LP can
provide, but still find digital to be superior. Yor response above
assumes that digital cannot beat the best LPs, but in my experience
that is not true.

--
David Bath - RAHE Co-moderator

[Scott[_6_]]

On Oct 24, 1:52=A0pm, (David E. Bath) wrote:
In article ,
=A0"Harry Lavo" writes:



For some of us, the sound of analog is enough to make us put up with th=
e
nusances, while for others the nuisances outweigh the sound, and yet ot=
hers
adhere to the insistence that digital must sound better because of it's
specs. =A0Personally, I fall somewhere between camps one and two, with =
my
listening at times mostly digital, at other times mostly LP or tape; bu=
t
nobody will ever convince me that analog is inferior to digital in soun=
d
quality.

Seems you left one one category of listener: those who lived with LPs
for many, many years, and have experienced with the best that LP can
provide, but still find digital to be superior. Yor response above
assumes that digital cannot beat the best LPs, but in my experience
that is not true.

--
David Bath - RAHE Co-moderator

He didn't leave that group out. He just didn't include himself and
"some" others among that group. I am curious as to what IYE you would
consider the best that LP can provide? What gear? What LPs? I think
this is pretty critical.

[Sonnova]

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 13:52:03 -0700, David E. Bath wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
"Harry Lavo" writes:

For some of us, the sound of analog is enough to make us put up with the
nusances, while for others the nuisances outweigh the sound, and yet others
adhere to the insistence that digital must sound better because of it's
specs. Personally, I fall somewhere between camps one and two, with my
listening at times mostly digital, at other times mostly LP or tape; but
nobody will ever convince me that analog is inferior to digital in sound
quality.

Seems you left one one category of listener: those who lived with LPs
for many, many years, and have experienced with the best that LP can
provide, but still find digital to be superior. Yor response above
assumes that digital cannot beat the best LPs, but in my experience
that is not true.



It's not a question of superior or inferior, it's a question of viability and
musicality. Is the vinyl record still viable? Does it confer upon the
listener a close personal involvement with the music? The answer to both of
those questions is yes. Now, I'm not about to tell anyone what they should
like or not like, but I do think that those who express a hatred (or at least
a strong dislike) for vinyl are cutting themselves off from not only some
great performances, but from some mighty fine sound.

[Dave Cook]

On Oct 24, 11:28=A0am, Sonnova wrote:
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 07:29:44 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
Did you a adjust the cartridge capacitive loading for the new cartrdige=
?

Not necessary for MM cartridges with most preamps. Low output MC cartridg=
es,
on the other hand, are a different story.

You have it backwards. Adjusting the *capacitive* loading is
necessary with many MM cartridges, but MC cartridges are generally not
effected by it. And it's also not unknown for 47k Ohms to not to be
the ideal resistive loading for some MMs. Unfortunately, many preamps
and phono sections give one no way to adjust capacitive loading; you
just have to be careful about the total capacitance of your tonearm
cable.

Dave Cook

[Roger Kulp]

On Oct 24, 8:29=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

Try listening to some good CDs.


No such thing.

Currently listening to 1940s Deutsche Gramophon 78s of Paul Van
Kempen.

Roger

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 07:29:44 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

wrote in message



snip
Well the new cartridge was a startling revelation in
smoothness, high frequencies that seemed to go on
forever and an overall fullness and rightness to the
sound that was most beguiling.

Did you a adjust the cartridge capacitive loading for
the new cartridge?

Not necessary for MM cartridges with most preamps

Obviously, there is a lacking of experience with Shure cartridges. Shure
cartridges particularly V15 and MR are especially well-known for their
sensitivity to capacitive loading.

. Low output MC cartridges, on the other hand, are a different
story.

Actually, the inverse is true. Due to their natural low impedance, it takes
large shifts in capacitive and resistive loading to appreciably change their
response.

I suddenly realized
why the debate about analog versus digital refuses to go
away

I still believe that
digital is the better choice now because there is still
the annoyance of dealing with analog=92s inherent
nuisances- cleaning the stylus after almost every band,
the pops and clicks well you already know them. But I
also know that if some how these things could be
ameliorated to a non issue I would drop digital in a
heartbeat, analog sounded that good. ( Don=92t mention
cleaning brushes, solutions etc, I=92ve been that route
in my Sumiko blue point special days, and they add
mostly nuisance value in my opinion.) So I continue to
listen mainly to digital, but ah! that analog sound, an
oasis in the digital desert=85may be some day=85.

The problem is that you're not comparing to the best
digital or even good digital. Cable companies are
legendary for their lack of interest in good technical
quality. Why would their music service be any different?

Obviously. As I've stated in the past, modern digital
recordings can be superb and should be better, overall
than almost any vinyl. But the best vinyl is very
"musical" indeed, and within the boundaries of vinyl's
inherent physical limitations (surface noise, limited
dynamic range, propensity to warp, be off-center, etc.)
some vinyl records can sound much more real than the same
material released on CD or even SACD or hi-res digital.
IOW, digital is NO panacea, but generally speaking, it is
much more ACCURATE than analog/vinyl could ever hope to
be.

Yes, there are bad examples of digital. The best technology is not insurance
against bad treatment, whether intentional or unintentional. Therefore it is
possible to mess up the production of a CD so profoundly that the
corresponding LP sounds better.

Of course, that doesn't, in any way, disqualify vinyl as
a satisfying music source. In fact, even old 78's can be
a satisfying musical source.

The key words here being "musical source". Sound quality and musical
qualities are two different things, and actually quite orthogonal to each
other.

[Serge Auckland[_3_]]

"UC" wrote in message
...
On Oct 24, 11:16 am, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
wrote in message

...






snipped

For some of us, the sound of analog is enough to make us put up with the
nusances, while for others the nuisances outweigh the sound, and yet
others
adhere to the insistence that digital must sound better because of it's
specs. Personally, I fall somewhere between camps one and two, with my
listening at times mostly digital, at other times mostly LP or tape; but
nobody will ever convince me that analog is inferior to digital in sound
quality.

The limitations of the LP are well-known. I had a very good rig
(Thorens TD-125 Mk II, Magnepan arm; my last cartridge was the Stax.
Before that I had owned, among others, the ADC XLM-2, Shure V15 III,
Ortofon MC-20, Dynavector Ruby, etc.). I grew to hate the LP with a
passion. The first few minutes on a side are always good....but when
you get past half-way the distortion just intrudes. By the end of the
side I hated every LP. Add to that warps, eccentricity, non-fill,
ticks and pops...I HATE LPs!

That does not mean that analogue itself is the problem. I'm quite sure
that 30ips master tapes sound fabulous...but LPs are a FAR cry from
that!


Exactly. It's not the analogue per se that's bad, but the carrier, i.e. the
LP.

S.

[David E. Bath]

In article ,
Scott writes:
On Oct 24, 1:52=A0pm, (David E. Bath) wrote:
In article ,
=A0"Harry Lavo" writes:



For some of us, the sound of analog is enough to make us put up with th=
e
nusances, while for others the nuisances outweigh the sound, and yet ot=
hers
adhere to the insistence that digital must sound better because of it's
specs. =A0Personally, I fall somewhere between camps one and two, with =
my
listening at times mostly digital, at other times mostly LP or tape; bu=
t
nobody will ever convince me that analog is inferior to digital in soun=
d
quality.

Seems you left one one category of listener: those who lived with LPs
for many, many years, and have experienced with the best that LP can
provide, but still find digital to be superior. Yor response above
assumes that digital cannot beat the best LPs, but in my experience
that is not true.

He didn't leave that group out. He just didn't include himself and
"some" others among that group. I am curious as to what IYE you would
consider the best that LP can provide? What gear? What LPs? I think
this is pretty critical.

I disagree that he let that group out since the only people who prefer
digital he mentioned are those who "adhere to the insistence that
digital must sound better because of it's specs". That was the point of
my post.

As to your question, I won't go there since that typically causes a
long discussion of which albums or LP setups are the best since there
are too many combinations to choose from. I no longer use my own LP
gear much any more, but I have many audiophile friends who choose LPs
over digital and we have had many listening sessions where they try to
change my mind. Also I go to the local audio salons and listen to
their best setups and have yet to hear something that sounds better to
me.

--
David Bath - RAHE Co-moderator

[David E. Bath]

In article ,
Sonnova writes:
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 13:52:03 -0700, David E. Bath wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
"Harry Lavo" writes:

For some of us, the sound of analog is enough to make us put up with the
nusances, while for others the nuisances outweigh the sound, and yet others
adhere to the insistence that digital must sound better because of it's
specs. Personally, I fall somewhere between camps one and two, with my
listening at times mostly digital, at other times mostly LP or tape; but
nobody will ever convince me that analog is inferior to digital in sound
quality.

Seems you left one one category of listener: those who lived with LPs
for many, many years, and have experienced with the best that LP can
provide, but still find digital to be superior. Yor response above
assumes that digital cannot beat the best LPs, but in my experience
that is not true.



It's not a question of superior or inferior, it's a question of viability and
musicality. Is the vinyl record still viable? Does it confer upon the
listener a close personal involvement with the music? The answer to both of
those questions is yes. Now, I'm not about to tell anyone what they should
like or not like, but I do think that those who express a hatred (or at least
a strong dislike) for vinyl are cutting themselves off from not only some
great performances, but from some mighty fine sound.

Let me use a different word than "superior" then, I find digital to
present a more satisfying musical experience than LP. I am not ruling
out all analog though, 15 ips tape is quire good to and that used to
be my pick for the best before digital came out and got past the early
years of the learning curve. I am excluding the poor examples of
mastering that can occur with any medium in my assessment.

--
David Bath - RAHE Co-moderator

[Harry Lavo]

"UC" wrote in message
...

snip discussion leading up to UC's quote

The limitations of the LP are well-known. I had a very good rig
(Thorens TD-125 Mk II, Magnepan arm; my last cartridge was the Stax.
Before that I had owned, among others, the ADC XLM-2, Shure V15 III,
Ortofon MC-20, Dynavector Ruby, etc.). I grew to hate the LP with a
passion. The first few minutes on a side are always good....but when
you get past half-way the distortion just intrudes. By the end of the
side I hated every LP. Add to that warps, eccentricity, non-fill,
ticks and pops...I HATE LPs!

That does not mean that analogue itself is the problem. I'm quite sure
that 30ips master tapes sound fabulous...but LPs are a FAR cry from
that!

Well, good equipment for sure. But I don't have anyway near that problem
with inner groove distortion, much less mid-record distortion. It may be
that the alignment of your tonearm on the Thorens was not what it should
have been. I also notice that the very fine cartridges you mention were
produced just before the popularity of shibata-stylii took hold. This shift
of stylii from eliptical to line-contact went a long way to further reducing
audible noise and audible distortion on LP playback. I use an Accuphase
AC-2 with line-contact myself on a Dual 701 turntable with 10" arm, and
simply have not had the kind of problem you mention.

[Sonnova]

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 07:35:57 -0700, David E. Bath wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Sonnova writes:
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 13:52:03 -0700, David E. Bath wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
"Harry Lavo" writes:

For some of us, the sound of analog is enough to make us put up with the
nusances, while for others the nuisances outweigh the sound, and yet
others
adhere to the insistence that digital must sound better because of it's
specs. Personally, I fall somewhere between camps one and two, with my
listening at times mostly digital, at other times mostly LP or tape; but
nobody will ever convince me that analog is inferior to digital in sound
quality.

Seems you left one one category of listener: those who lived with LPs
for many, many years, and have experienced with the best that LP can
provide, but still find digital to be superior. Yor response above
assumes that digital cannot beat the best LPs, but in my experience
that is not true.



It's not a question of superior or inferior, it's a question of viability
and
musicality. Is the vinyl record still viable? Does it confer upon the
listener a close personal involvement with the music? The answer to both of
those questions is yes. Now, I'm not about to tell anyone what they should
like or not like, but I do think that those who express a hatred (or at
least
a strong dislike) for vinyl are cutting themselves off from not only some
great performances, but from some mighty fine sound.

Let me use a different word than "superior" then, I find digital to
present a more satisfying musical experience than LP. I am not ruling
out all analog though, 15 ips tape is quire good to and that used to
be my pick for the best before digital came out and got past the early
years of the learning curve. I am excluding the poor examples of
mastering that can occur with any medium in my assessment.



I still think that you miss my point. Of course, digital is more accurate,
but that accuracy does not, in any way, diminish the musicality of LP. LP is
simply another musical source for home listening and can be very satisfying.
Besides, there are lots of great performances that have never been released
on CD, and likely, never will be, which, in and of itself is a good enough
reason to keep LP viable.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Oct 25, 6:44=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:


Yes, there are bad examples of digital. The best technology is not insura=
nce
against bad treatment, whether intentional or unintentional. Therefore it=
is
possible to mess up the production of a CD so profoundly that the
corresponding LP sounds better.


Actually, throughout the history of CD production, many a state of the
art CD has wrought inferior sound compared to the best LP of that
title.
We can find examples that I have cited before of SOTA CD production
that wrought CDs that compare less favorably with the best LP has to
offer with the Mercury Living Presence CDs, The DCC reissues, Recent
offerings from MoFi etc etc. It isn't limited to the badly done CDs.
Although such "bad" CDs are IMO far too numerous for anyone interested
in good sound to limit themselves to that medium. heck even the guys
who just mastered the Beatles CDs that are all the buzz will tell you
that the original LPs still sound better. Go figure.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Oct 25, 7:35=A0am, (David E. Bath) wrote:
In article ,





=A0Scott writes:
On Oct 24, 1:52=3DA0pm, (David E. Bath) wrote:
In article ,
=3DA0"Harry Lavo" writes:

For some of us, the sound of analog is enough to make us put up with=
th=3D
e
nusances, while for others the nuisances outweigh the sound, and yet=
ot=3D
hers
adhere to the insistence that digital must sound better because of i=
t's
specs. =3DA0Personally, I fall somewhere between camps one and two, =
with =3D
my
listening at times mostly digital, at other times mostly LP or tape;=
bu=3D
t
nobody will ever convince me that analog is inferior to digital in s=
oun=3D
d
quality.

Seems you left one one category of listener: those who lived with LPs
for many, many years, and have experienced with the best that LP can
provide, but still find digital to be superior. Yor response above
assumes that digital cannot beat the best LPs, but in my experience
that is not true.

He didn't leave that group out. He just didn't include himself and
"some" others among that group. I am curious as to what IYE you would
consider the best that LP can provide? What gear? What LPs? I think
this is pretty critical.

I disagree that he let that group out since the only people who prefer
digital he mentioned are those who "adhere to the insistence that
digital must sound better because of it's specs". That was the point of
my post.

Fair enough. But... Given the nature of bias effects how can we be
sure that those who prefer digital don't actually often do so because
they are biased by the specs? It goes both ways for sure. But there is
no getting around that dead moose in the middle of the room.


As to your question, I won't go there since that typically causes a
long discussion of which albums or LP setups are the best since there
are too many combinations to choose from. I no longer use my own LP
gear much any more, but I have many audiophile friends who choose LPs
over digital and we have had many listening sessions where they try to
change my mind. Also I go to the local audio salons and listen to
their best setups and have yet to hear something that sounds better to
me.


I understand your desire to avoid such a lengthy discussion but your
opinion simply lacks meaningful context without it. It is not a
trivial matter. If one really wants to compare the two media the
issues of source material, mastering and equipment have to be
carefully considered. If one wants to persue better sound in the world
of commercial recordings one has to be very aware of these things when
making choices. "CD is better than LP" or LP is better than CD" are
positions that lack meaningful context. They are often both true
depending on the details of the circumstance. I am very leary of
anyone who makes blanket declarations either pro CD or pro LP. If one
hasn't heard it go both ways many times one either lacks meaningful
experience or is overtaken by bias. That is my opinion and I am
sticking with it.

[David E. Bath]

In article ,
Sonnova writes:
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 07:35:57 -0700, David E. Bath wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Sonnova writes:

It's not a question of superior or inferior, it's a question of viability
and
musicality. Is the vinyl record still viable? Does it confer upon the
listener a close personal involvement with the music? The answer to both of
those questions is yes. Now, I'm not about to tell anyone what they should
like or not like, but I do think that those who express a hatred (or at
least
a strong dislike) for vinyl are cutting themselves off from not only some
great performances, but from some mighty fine sound.

Let me use a different word than "superior" then, I find digital to
present a more satisfying musical experience than LP. I am not ruling
out all analog though, 15 ips tape is quire good to and that used to
be my pick for the best before digital came out and got past the early
years of the learning curve. I am excluding the poor examples of
mastering that can occur with any medium in my assessment.



I still think that you miss my point. Of course, digital is more accurate,
but that accuracy does not, in any way, diminish the musicality of LP. LP is
simply another musical source for home listening and can be very satisfying.
Besides, there are lots of great performances that have never been released
on CD, and likely, never will be, which, in and of itself is a good enough
reason to keep LP viable.

I didn't miss your point, but you certainly missed mine. Please show
where I stated or even inferred that "digital is more accurate". My
statements were about "a more satisfying musical experience".

--
David Bath - RAHE Co-moderator

[bob]

On Oct 25, 3:38=A0pm, Scott wrote:

Fair enough. But... Given the nature of bias effects how can we be
sure that those who prefer digital don't actually often do so because
they are biased by the specs? It goes both ways for sure. But there is
no getting around that dead moose in the middle of the room.

I don't think it goes both ways. No one who prefers vinyl can be
accused of being biased by the specs.

"CD is better than LP" or LP is better than CD" are
positions that lack meaningful context.

They are if you quote them out of context.

I am very leary of
anyone who makes blanket declarations either pro CD or pro LP.

I am very leary of anyone who confuses the technical capabilities of a
medium with its implementation, and especially of anyone who views his
subjective preferences as indicative of technical capabilities.

bob

[Sonnova]

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 11:43:06 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On Oct 25, 6:44=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:


Yes, there are bad examples of digital. The best technology is not insura=
nce
against bad treatment, whether intentional or unintentional. Therefore it=
is
possible to mess up the production of a CD so profoundly that the
corresponding LP sounds better.


Actually, throughout the history of CD production, many a state of the
art CD has wrought inferior sound compared to the best LP of that
title.

That is my experience as well.

We can find examples that I have cited before of SOTA CD production
that wrought CDs that compare less favorably with the best LP has to
offer with the Mercury Living Presence CDs, The DCC reissues, Recent
offerings from MoFi etc etc. It isn't limited to the badly done CDs.
Although such "bad" CDs are IMO far too numerous for anyone interested
in good sound to limit themselves to that medium. heck even the guys
who just mastered the Beatles CDs that are all the buzz will tell you
that the original LPs still sound better. Go figure.

Good point. One should be willing to seek out the BEST EXAMPLE of any given
recording, not just rely on - "This CD is a digital copy of the master tape,
it MUST be the best sounding version available." As G. Gershwin once wrote in
'Porgy and Bess': "It ain't necessarily so."

[Scott[_6_]]

On Oct 25, 1:23=A0pm, bob wrote:
On Oct 25, 3:38=3DA0pm, Scott wrote:

Fair enough. But... Given the nature of bias effects how can we be
sure that those who prefer digital don't actually often do so because
they are biased by the specs? It goes both ways for sure. But there is
no getting around that dead moose in the middle of the room.

I don't think it goes both ways. No one who prefers vinyl can be
accused of being biased by the specs.

They certainly may be swayed by bias. That was my point.


"CD is better than LP" or LP is better than CD" are
positions that lack meaningful context.

They are if you quote them out of context.

Or if no context is offered.


I am very leary of
anyone who makes blanket declarations either pro CD or pro LP.

I am very leary of anyone who confuses the technical capabilities of a
medium with its implementation, and especially of anyone who views his
subjective preferences as indicative of technical capabilities.



You are leary of the person? The subjective opinions of the person on
LP and CD sound? or the technical knowledge of the person in regards
to LP and CD sound? I can understand the latter. The rest makes no
sense. One's perceptions are what they are regardless of their
technical knowledge.

[Sonnova]

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 13:23:26 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Oct 25, 3:38=A0pm, Scott wrote:

Fair enough. But... Given the nature of bias effects how can we be
sure that those who prefer digital don't actually often do so because
they are biased by the specs? It goes both ways for sure. But there is
no getting around that dead moose in the middle of the room.

I don't think it goes both ways. No one who prefers vinyl can be
accused of being biased by the specs.

"CD is better than LP" or LP is better than CD" are
positions that lack meaningful context.

They are if you quote them out of context.

I am very leary of
anyone who makes blanket declarations either pro CD or pro LP.

I am very leary of anyone who confuses the technical capabilities of a
medium with its implementation, and especially of anyone who views his
subjective preferences as indicative of technical capabilities.

bob


I'll add to that my leariness of the opinions of anyone who excludes any
source of music (even MP3) out of hand just because it could or might be
inferior to some other media based on EITHER technical capabilities or
subjective criteria. The music is where you find it.

IOW, I have, in my collection, great sounding CDs and lousy sounding CDs. I
have great sounding LPs,and I have lousy sounding LP, I have great sounding
SACDs and some that are not so great. I even have CDs that sound better than
many SACDs or so-called hi-rez sources. It's not cut and dry, and heck,
that's part of the fun of it all.

[Sonnova]

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 13:23:20 -0700, David E. Bath wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Sonnova writes:
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 07:35:57 -0700, David E. Bath wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Sonnova writes:

It's not a question of superior or inferior, it's a question of viability
and
musicality. Is the vinyl record still viable? Does it confer upon the
listener a close personal involvement with the music? The answer to both
of
those questions is yes. Now, I'm not about to tell anyone what they
should
like or not like, but I do think that those who express a hatred (or at
least
a strong dislike) for vinyl are cutting themselves off from not only some
great performances, but from some mighty fine sound.

Let me use a different word than "superior" then, I find digital to
present a more satisfying musical experience than LP. I am not ruling
out all analog though, 15 ips tape is quire good to and that used to
be my pick for the best before digital came out and got past the early
years of the learning curve. I am excluding the poor examples of
mastering that can occur with any medium in my assessment.



I still think that you miss my point. Of course, digital is more accurate,
but that accuracy does not, in any way, diminish the musicality of LP. LP
is
simply another musical source for home listening and can be very
satisfying.
Besides, there are lots of great performances that have never been released
on CD, and likely, never will be, which, in and of itself is a good enough
reason to keep LP viable.

I didn't miss your point, but you certainly missed mine. Please show
where I stated or even inferred that "digital is more accurate". My
statements were about "a more satisfying musical experience".



We're still not communicating, David. I was STIPULATING that digital is more
accurate, not rebutting any point you made. And my point was that musically
satisfying experiences are where you find them and not confined to any one
technology or media.

[Steven Sullivan]

wrote:

But I also know that if some how
these things could be ameliorated to a non issue I would drop digital
in a heartbeat, analog sounded that good. ( Don=92t mention cleaning
brushes, solutions etc, I=92ve been that route in my Sumiko blue point
special days, and they add mostly nuisance value in my opinion.) So I
continue to listen mainly to digital, but ah! that analog sound, an
oasis in the digital desert=85may be some day=85.

You could just record your beloved LPs to digital, you know,
and get the 'best of both worlds' -- all of LP's euphonic distortion
and all of digital's portability, ease of use, freedom from
audible distortion, and resistance to wear and tear.


--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message

On Oct 25, 6:44=A0am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


Yes, there are bad examples of digital. The best
technology is not insura= nce against bad treatment,
whether intentional or unintentional. Therefore it= is
possible to mess up the production of a CD so profoundly
that the corresponding LP sounds better.

Actually, throughout the history of CD production, many a
state of the art CD has wrought inferior sound compared
to the best LP of that title.

I note reliance on the vague word "many". What does that mean, more than 5?

We can find examples that I have cited before of SOTA CD
production that wrought CDs that compare less favorably
with the best LP has to offer with the Mercury Living
Presence CDs, The DCC reissues, Recent offerings from
MoFi etc etc. It isn't limited to the badly done CDs.

Various comments from industry sources suggest that there have been
literally 10,000s of new CD titles per year. Nothing made by man is
perfect, there will always be few mistakes.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Oct 26, 7:02=C2=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



On Oct 25, 6:44=3DA0am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Yes, there are bad examples of digital. The best
technology is not insura=3D nce against bad treatment,
whether intentional or unintentional. Therefore it=3D is
possible to mess up the production of a CD so profoundly
that the corresponding LP sounds better.
Actually, throughout the history of CD production, many a
state of the art CD has wrought inferior sound compared
to the best LP of that title.

I note reliance on the vague word "many". =C2=A0What does that mean, more=
than 5?

You don't know what "many" means Arny? here is a very nice easy to
understand definition,

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/many
Main Entry: 1many
Pronunciation: \=CB=88me-n=C4=93\
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): more \=CB=88mo=CC=87r\; most \=CB=88m=C5=8Dst\
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English manig; akin to Old High
German manag many, Old Church Slavic m=C5=ADnog=C5=AD much
Date: before 12th century
1 : consisting of or amounting to a large but indefinite number
worked for many years
2 : being one of a large but indefinite number many a man

So to answer youe other question. No it does not mean more than 5.
Given the vast catalog of the world's CDs and LPs it would be absurd
for me to asign a specific number. This should be obvious. So many
simply means many and now that you know what many means you should be
able to understand my post.


We can find examples that I have cited before of SOTA CD
production that wrought CDs that compare less favorably
with the best LP has to offer with the Mercury Living
Presence CDs, The DCC reissues, Recent offerings from
MoFi etc etc. It isn't limited to the badly done CDs.

Various comments from industry sources suggest that there have been
literally 10,000s of new CD titles per year. =C2=A0Nothing made by man is
perfect, there will always be few mistakes.

Note the reliance on the vague word "few" (ironic no?)

What "mistakes" were made in the mastering of the Mercury Living
Presence CDs? What mistakes were made in the mastering of the MoFis
and DCC CDs? Or did you miss that point that "well made" CDs are often
still sonically inferior to an LP counterpart?

Of the "10,000s of new CD titles per year" how many are not actually
deliberately badly made these days with excessive compression, bad
noise reduction, bad EQ and other atrocities against good sound? Or is
this exempt because it is deliberate degradation as opposed to a
"mistake?" We have reached a point in popular music where uncompressed
CDs have become an audiophile niche market and such CDs are actually
specifically advertised as such. "few?"

How many "mistake free" CDs can you actually name out of the "10,000s
of new CD titles per year" that would show us that these "mistakes'
are so 'few" in number?

[UC]

On Oct 25, 12:25 pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"UC" wrote in message

...

snip discussion leading up to UC's quote
The limitations of the LP are well-known. I had a very good rig
(Thorens TD-125 Mk II, Magnepan arm; my last cartridge was the Stax.
Before that I had owned, among others, the ADC XLM-2, Shure V15 III,
Ortofon MC-20, Dynavector Ruby, etc.). I grew to hate the LP with a
passion. The first few minutes on a side are always good....but when
you get past half-way the distortion just intrudes. By the end of the
side I hated every LP. Add to that warps, eccentricity, non-fill,
ticks and pops...I HATE LPs!
That does not mean that analogue itself is the problem. I'm quite sure
that 30ips master tapes sound fabulous...but LPs are a FAR cry from
that!

Well, good equipment for sure. But I don't have anyway near that problem
with inner groove distortion, much less mid-record distortion. It may be
that the alignment of your tonearm on the Thorens was not what it should
have been. I also notice that the very fine cartridges you mention were
produced just before the popularity of shibata-stylii took hold. This shift
of stylii from eliptical to line-contact went a long way to further reducing
audible noise and audible distortion on LP playback. I use an Accuphase
AC-2 with line-contact myself on a Dual 701 turntable with 10" arm, and
simply have not had the kind of problem you mention.

No, I had alignment well in hand. Had pro set up table every time. I
am just really aware of the limitations of LPs. The distortion begins
about halfway through a side and becomes obvious by the end.

[Robert Peirce[_2_]]

In article ,
UC wrote:

On Oct 25, 12:25 pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"UC" wrote in message

...
I grew to hate the LP with a
passion. The first few minutes on a side are always good....but when
you get past half-way the distortion just intrudes. By the end of the
side I hated every LP. Add to that warps, eccentricity, non-fill,
ticks and pops...I HATE LPs!

Well, good equipment for sure. But I don't have anyway near that problem
with inner groove distortion, much less mid-record distortion. It may be
that the alignment of your tonearm on the Thorens was not what it should
have been.

No, I had alignment well in hand. Had pro set up table every time. I
am just really aware of the limitations of LPs. The distortion begins
about halfway through a side and becomes obvious by the end.

That really doesn't mean it was actually set up correctly. My rig is a
VPI with a Shelter MC cartridge and a carefully aligned arm. I also
clean my records and store them carefully. If I actually hear a pop on
a new record I send it back. Even my oldest records, dating back to
1958, are incredibly noise free. Distortion is not an issue. It is
there because the arm is not linear tracking, but it is inaudible.

Please note, this is not a claim the LP is superior to CD or vice versa.
I listen to and enjoy both. Sometimes one sounds better and sometimes
the other. It depends on how the original material was written to the
final medium.

--
Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac]
rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office]

[Nickyrash]

Originally Posted by

About 2 months ago my Shure v15mr cartridge suddenly lost the right
channel. Try as I might I couldn=92t figure out why and since for a long
time it was being used with an old stylus that I had reclaimed from
the bottom of a drawer after a newer one broke, I thought to buy a
cheap new cartridge to play my Lps when the occasional mood struck me.

You see heretofore about 90% of my listening was the music available
through the local cable tv provider: digital, clear, noise free.
Horrors ! you say? Thing of it is that my system is so good that even
that source sounds good a lot of the time. Anyhow, I bought a Shure
m97xe from Jerry Raskin=92s Needle doctor and installed it in the
turntable. Turns out that the original lost channel was probably due
to a clip coming loose and touching the ground clip on the cartridge
as the new one gave the very same problem until I discovered that was
the problem.

Well the new cartridge was a startling revelation in smoothness, high
frequencies that seemed to go on forever and an overall fullness and
rightness to the sound that was most beguiling. I suddenly realized
why the debate about analog versus digital refuses to go away and this
with a cartridge that was not a moving coil or even counted among the
best. I still believe that digital is the better choice now because
there is still the annoyance of dealing with analog=92s inherent
nuisances- cleaning the stylus after almost every band, the pops and
clicks well you already know them. But I also know that if some how
these things could be ameliorated to a non issue I would drop digital
in a heartbeat, analog sounded that good. ( Don=92t mention cleaning
brushes, solutions etc, I=92ve been that route in my Sumiko blue point
special days, and they add mostly nuisance value in my opinion.) So I
continue to listen mainly to digital, but ah! that analog sound, an
oasis in the digital desert=85may be some day=85.

The System?

No name portable cd player and cable provider supplied cable box
AR es1 turntable with Audioquest Pt6 arm and new Shure m97xe
Conrad-johnson Pv5 preamp
Bi-amped Quad Esl 63/Gradient speakers
Quad 606 amps with Gradient active x-over (modified ala MT Audio
Design)

I was waiting for the same type of information i got it know it helped me a lot thank you very much.