| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The Vinylizer
Occasionally, during one of our long threads about vinyl vs.
digital,someone suggests the invention of a "vinylizer," a knob that can dial in any amount of the various distortions characteristic of vinyl playback. Well, it isn't that simple yet, but technology finds a way: http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/vinyl/ bob |
|
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Vinylizer
Il 25/07/2010 23.49, bob ha scritto:
Occasionally, during one of our long threads about vinyl vs. digital,someone suggests the invention of a "vinylizer," a knob that can dial in any amount of the various distortions characteristic of vinyl playback. Well, it isn't that simple yet, but technology finds a way: http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/vinyl/ bob ... various distortions? I'm not getting any of those "various distortions" you're talking about. How can I get those in my systems? I'd like to be a happy owner of a misaligned, mismatched, mistuned, mispriced ... turntable but unfortunately I'm not. ;-) I only have four beautyfully working and cheaply bought turntables with the perfectly matched arms and cartridges and so ... I'm very very very sad. Frank |
|
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Vinylizer
"Frank" wrote in message
Il 25/07/2010 23.49, bob ha scritto: Occasionally, during one of our long threads about vinyl vs. digital,someone suggests the invention of a "vinylizer," a knob that can dial in any amount of the various distortions characteristic of vinyl playback. Well, it isn't that simple yet, but technology finds a way: http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/vinyl/ bob .. various distortions? Read the web site? Mechanical Noise - The amount of turntable motor rumble and noise Electrical Noise - Internally generated electrical noise, such as 60 Hz grounding hum Wear Control - how worn out the record is, from brand new to played a few thousand times Dust - The amount of dust on the record Scratch -The number and depth of scratches on the record Warp -The amount of warping and the warp shape for the record - from no warp to the edges totally melted and warped These are all common to vinyl playback, and generally when they are reduced as much as the art allows by traditional means, they are still audible. Also, a number of kinds of common vinyl-related distoritons are not mentioned including: Tracking distortion Tracing distortion Flutter |
|
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Vinylizer
"bob" wrote in message
... Occasionally, during one of our long threads about vinyl vs. digital,someone suggests the invention of a "vinylizer," a knob that can dial in any amount of the various distortions characteristic of vinyl playback. Well, it isn't that simple yet, but technology finds a way: http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/vinyl/ i use 'tapelyzer' lately: connect your cd to cassette deck, fiddle a little with levels, bias and dolby, and enjoy pure analog sounding cd material  |
|
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Vinylizer
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 06:30:20 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Frank" wrote in message Il 25/07/2010 23.49, bob ha scritto: Occasionally, during one of our long threads about vinyl vs. digital,someone suggests the invention of a "vinylizer," a knob that can dial in any amount of the various distortions characteristic of vinyl playback. Well, it isn't that simple yet, but technology finds a way: http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/vinyl/ bob .. various distortions? Read the web site? Mechanical Noise - The amount of turntable motor rumble and noise Electrical Noise - Internally generated electrical noise, such as 60 Hz grounding hum Wear Control - how worn out the record is, from brand new to played a few thousand times Dust - The amount of dust on the record Scratch -The number and depth of scratches on the record Warp -The amount of warping and the warp shape for the record - from no warp to the edges totally melted and warped These are all common to vinyl playback, and generally when they are reduced as much as the art allows by traditional means, they are still audible. Also, a number of kinds of common vinyl-related distoritons are not mentioned including: Tracking distortion Tracing distortion Flutter Why would anybody want to add the BAD things about vinyl to their CD playback? These are things that I take great care to avoid by handling my vinyl record collection correctly and taking great care to keep them clean, dust and warp free. I listen to records because they still give me a great deal of listening pleasure and the the things that this "Vinylizer" brings to the party, are those very things that I strive to avoid. How about a "CDizer" a device that adds the harshness and a flat sound stage with poor imaging that characterized many early CDs and players to modern CD playback? Makes no sense. |
|
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Vinylizer
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 06:30:20 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Frank" wrote in message Il 25/07/2010 23.49, bob ha scritto: Occasionally, during one of our long threads about vinyl vs. digital,someone suggests the invention of a "vinylizer," a knob that can dial in any amount of the various distortions characteristic of vinyl playback. Well, it isn't that simple yet, but technology finds a way: http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/vinyl/ bob .. various distortions? Read the web site? Mechanical Noise - The amount of turntable motor rumble and noise Electrical Noise - Internally generated electrical noise, such as 60 Hz grounding hum Wear Control - how worn out the record is, from brand new to played a few thousand times Dust - The amount of dust on the record Scratch -The number and depth of scratches on the record Warp -The amount of warping and the warp shape for the record - from no warp to the edges totally melted and warped These are all common to vinyl playback, and generally when they are reduced as much as the art allows by traditional means, they are still audible. Also, a number of kinds of common vinyl-related distoritons are not mentioned including: Tracking distortion Tracing distortion Flutter Why would anybody want to add the BAD things about vinyl to their CD playback? Sentimentality. These are things that I take great care to avoid by handling my vinyl record collection correctly and taking great care to keep them clean, dust and warp free. That helps, but it does not completely resolve the problems. I listen to records because they still give me a great deal of listening pleasure and the the things that this "Vinylizer" brings to the party, are those very things that I strive to avoid. The only way to totally avoid them is to avoid vinyl. How about a "CDizer" a device that adds the harshness and a flat sound stage with poor imaging that characterized many early CDs and players to modern CD playback? That's just bad mastering, and there is no method to its madness. Makes no sense. Some people do the darnedest things! |
|
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Vinylizer
On Jul 25, 2:49=A0pm, bob wrote:
Occasionally, during one of our long threads about vinyl vs. digital,someone suggests the invention of a "vinylizer," a knob that can dial in any amount of the various distortions characteristic of vinyl playback. Well, it isn't that simple yet, but technology finds a way: http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/vinyl/ bob Too bad this one completely missed the mark. It would be a good idea if it were done right without the cyncism. Maybe somebody who gets vinyl will make something that will actually do the job. |
|
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Vinylizer
"Scott" wrote in message
On Jul 25, 2:49=A0pm, bob wrote: Occasionally, during one of our long threads about vinyl vs. digital,someone suggests the invention of a "vinylizer," a knob that can dial in any amount of the various distortions characteristic of vinyl playback. Well, it isn't that simple yet, but technology finds a way: http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/vinyl/ Too bad this one completely missed the mark. It would be a good idea if it were done right without the cyncism. Maybe somebody who gets vinyl will make something that will actually do the job. What is "getting vinyl"? The facts about vinyl in approximate order of importance to most people: (1) Playing vinyl can be a means for accessing music that was never deemed to be commercially worthy of rerecording on digital. (2) Playing vinyl can be a means for obtaining a different approach to mastering for recordings that were not treated in accordance with our preferences when it was recorded on digital. (3) Playing vinyl can be a sentimental act, a trip down memory lane. The Vinylizer seems to be a heavy-handed approximation that tries to address the third item on the list. |
|
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Vinylizer
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 17:03:35 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 06:30:20 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Frank" wrote in message Il 25/07/2010 23.49, bob ha scritto: Occasionally, during one of our long threads about vinyl vs. digital,someone suggests the invention of a "vinylizer," a knob that can dial in any amount of the various distortions characteristic of vinyl playback. Well, it isn't that simple yet, but technology finds a way: http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/vinyl/ bob .. various distortions? Read the web site? Mechanical Noise - The amount of turntable motor rumble and noise Electrical Noise - Internally generated electrical noise, such as 60 Hz grounding hum Wear Control - how worn out the record is, from brand new to played a few thousand times Dust - The amount of dust on the record Scratch -The number and depth of scratches on the record Warp -The amount of warping and the warp shape for the record - from no warp to the edges totally melted and warped These are all common to vinyl playback, and generally when they are reduced as much as the art allows by traditional means, they are still audible. Also, a number of kinds of common vinyl-related distoritons are not mentioned including: Tracking distortion Tracing distortion Flutter Why would anybody want to add the BAD things about vinyl to their CD playback? Sentimentality. Balderdash and blarney! There are things from vinyl playback that I might WANT to add to a CD (like musicality and warmth and a sense of real instruments playing in real space), but the above mentioned vinyl artifacts are not among them. These are things that I take great care to avoid by handling my vinyl record collection correctly and taking great care to keep them clean, dust and warp free. That helps, but it does not completely resolve the problems. Of course it doesn't, but that's beside the point. The point is who would WANT to add those things to a medium that doesn't have them? I listen to records because they still give me a great deal of listening pleasure and the the things that this "Vinylizer" brings to the party, are those very things that I strive to avoid. The only way to totally avoid them is to avoid vinyl. Yeah, like anybody with a large record collection is dumb enough to do that! How about a "CDizer" a device that adds the harshness and a flat sound stage with poor imaging that characterized many early CDs and players to modern CD playback? That's just bad mastering, and there is no method to its madness. That's not the point either. The point is, that just like with the "Vinylizer", nobody is going to want to relive those days and those problems. Makes no sense. Some people do the darnedest things! Yeah, that's for sure. Many people throw babies out with bath water too. |
|
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Vinylizer
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 17:03:35 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message Why would anybody want to add the BAD things about vinyl to their CD playback? Sentimentality. Balderdash and blarney! There are things from vinyl playback that I might WANT to add to a CD (like musicality and warmth and a sense of real instruments playing in real space), but the above mentioned vinyl artifacts are not among them. I never said otherwise. If you want to add warmth, there are always equalizers. Of course equalizing warmth into a badly-mastered recordings (and cold-sounding LPs definately exist) takes skill and effort that many lack. These are things that I take great care to avoid by handling my vinyl record collection correctly and taking great care to keep them clean, dust and warp free. That helps, but it does not completely resolve the problems. Of course it doesn't, but that's beside the point. The point is who would WANT to add those things to a medium that doesn't have them? Like I said, sentimentality. I still remember obtaining a MP3 of a LP transfer of a jazz number that I used to listen to frequently back in the days of vinyl. Yes it was a little harsh and reedy like vinyl can be and there were tics and pops, but it brought back memories of a certain hot summer night, and enough said in public about that one! ;-) The tics and pops even had the sharp slightly ringy quality that one of my old cartridges, maybe an Empire 108, had. I listen to records because they still give me a great deal of listening pleasure and the the things that this "Vinylizer" brings to the party, are those very things that I strive to avoid. The only way to totally avoid them is to avoid vinyl. Yeah, like anybody with a large record collection is dumb enough to do that! My large record collection magically transformed itself into CDs through the magic of reselling the LPs before they lost much of their value. How about a "CDizer" a device that adds the harshness and a flat sound stage with poor imaging that characterized many early CDs and players to modern CD playback? That's just bad mastering, and there is no method to its madness. That's not the point either. Why not? |
|
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Vinylizer
Arny Krueger wrote:
The facts about vinyl in approximate order of importance to most people: How did you determine these so-called "facts" about vinyl? |
|
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Vinylizer
On Jul 27, 4:48=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message On Jul 25, 2:49=3DA0pm, bob wrote: Occasionally, during one of our long threads about vinyl vs. digital,someone suggests the invention of a "vinylizer," a knob that can dial in any amount of the various distortions characteristic of vinyl playback. Well, it isn't that simple yet, but technology finds a way: http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/vinyl/ Too bad this one completely missed the mark. It would be a good idea if it were done right without the cyncism. Maybe somebody who gets vinyl will make something that will actually do the job. What is "getting vinyl"? Understanding the sonic aesthetic virtues that can be found with vinyl. The facts about vinyl in approximate order of importance to most people: Sorry you don't get to speak for most people. Especially given your well documented prejudices on vinyl. This product misses the mark IMO. I am speaking as an audiophile who is interested in the aesthetic value of sound and appreciates the virtues of the sound one can get from vinyl. If *you* find some appeal with this product then feel free to tell us what *you* find appealing about it. I'm not interested in hearing you try to speak for "most people." |
|
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Vinylizer
On Jul 26, 9:29=A0pm, Scott wrote:
On Jul 25, 2:49=3DA0pm, bob wrote: Occasionally, during one of our long threads about vinyl vs. digital,someone suggests the invention of a "vinylizer," a knob that can dial in any amount of the various distortions characteristic of vinyl playback. Well, it isn't that simple yet, but technology finds a way: http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/vinyl/ bob Too bad this one completely missed the mark. It would be a good idea if it were done right without the cyncism. Maybe somebody who gets vinyl will make something that will actually do the job. I have actually used this plug on a record I've mixed: http://rpgmusic.band= camp.com/ |
|
#14
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Vinylizer
"Scott" wrote in message
On Jul 27, 4:48=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Scott" wrote in message On Jul 25, 2:49=3DA0pm, bob wrote: Occasionally, during one of our long threads about vinyl vs. digital,someone suggests the invention of a "vinylizer," a knob that can dial in any amount of the various distortions characteristic of vinyl playback. Well, it isn't that simple yet, but technology finds a way: http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/vinyl/ Too bad this one completely missed the mark. It would be a good idea if it were done right without the cyncism. Maybe somebody who gets vinyl will make something that will actually do the job. What is "getting vinyl"? Understanding the sonic aesthetic virtues that can be found with vinyl. The facts about vinyl in approximate order of importance to most people: Sorry you don't get to speak for most people. Not only most but the vast majority of people have long since forgot about vinyl. The RIAA market share data makes that quite clear. Especially given your well documented prejudices on vinyl. What prejudice of mine is that? Is it not true that my comments about vinyl have been 100% factual, and backed by published, peer-reviewed technical papers, statistical evidence from reliable industry sources and decades of personal experience? This product misses the mark IMO. But you don't say why in a detailed, convincing way. In fact, you've presented no evidence that you've ever actually listened to it. Could it be that your opinions of it are based only on prejudice? I am speaking as an audiophile who is interested in the aesthetic value of sound Given that you have presented no first hand information about the sound of this product... |
|
#15
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Vinylizer
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 07:45:47 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Scott" wrote in message On Jul 27, 4:48=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Scott" wrote in message On Jul 25, 2:49=3DA0pm, bob wrote: Occasionally, during one of our long threads about vinyl vs. digital,someone suggests the invention of a "vinylizer," a knob that can dial in any amount of the various distortions characteristic of vinyl playback. Well, it isn't that simple yet, but technology finds a way: http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/vinyl/ Too bad this one completely missed the mark. It would be a good idea if it were done right without the cyncism. Maybe somebody who gets vinyl will make something that will actually do the job. What is "getting vinyl"? Understanding the sonic aesthetic virtues that can be found with vinyl. The facts about vinyl in approximate order of importance to most people: Sorry you don't get to speak for most people. Not only most but the vast majority of people have long since forgot about vinyl. The RIAA market share data makes that quite clear. Yet enough people DO value vinyl that records are still pressed and hundreds of manufacturers still make turntables, some costing a small fortune, Cartridges are still available at all price points from $20 on the low end to tens of thousands on the high end with new ones being introduced all the time. Not to mention a myriad of phono preamps available, again at all price points, as well as recently introduced preamps and integrated amps that have phono stages either built-in as standard or available as an option. Again, rumors of vinyl's demise is greatly exaggerated. Especially given your well documented prejudices on vinyl. What prejudice of mine is that? Is it not true that my comments about vinyl have been 100% factual, and backed by published, peer-reviewed technical papers, statistical evidence from reliable industry sources and decades of personal experience? Your facts are not in question here. Your obvious and oft stated disdain for vinyl is what gives away your prejudice. This product misses the mark IMO. But you don't say why in a detailed, convincing way. In fact, you've presented no evidence that you've ever actually listened to it. Could it be that your opinions of it are based only on prejudice? I am speaking as an audiophile who is interested in the aesthetic value of sound Given that you have presented no first hand information about the sound of this product... Wouldn't the fact that this "Vinylizer" introduces wow, flutter, tracking distortion, ticks and pops automatically disqualify it from serious consideration by ANY music lover? People who listen to vinyl, at least in my considerable experience, still listen to it because of two distinct and different reasons. One faction holds that LP sounds "better" than digital, and the other faction sees LP as just another source of music (that's the faction to which I, mostly, belong), like CD, FM radio, tape, downloads from the internet, etc. Neither like warp wow, eccentric records, ticks or pops, mis-tracking, Inner-groove distortion, or any of the other ills that can plague vinyl playback, and most, if not all vinyl listeners strive to avoid those things. The fact that this "Vinylizer seems to re-introduce these unwanted artifacts to digital playback is missing the point. Now if it made digital SOUND like a well recorded, well pressed vinyl record WITHOUT those unwanted artifacts, then he'd have something. |
|
#16
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Vinylizer
On 7/29/2010 4:43 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
Wouldn't the fact that this "Vinylizer" introduces wow, flutter, tracking distortion, ticks and pops automatically disqualify it from serious consideration by ANY music lover? People who listen to vinyl, at least in my considerable experience, still listen to it because of two distinct and different reasons. One faction holds that LP sounds "better" than digital, and the other faction sees LP as just another source of music (that's the faction to which I, mostly, belong), like CD, FM radio, tape, downloads from the internet, etc. Neither like warp wow, eccentric records, ticks or pops, mis-tracking, Inner-groove distortion, or any of the other ills that can plague vinyl playback, and most, if not all vinyl listeners strive to avoid those things. The fact that this "Vinylizer seems to re-introduce these unwanted artifacts to digital playback is missing the point. Now if it made digital SOUND like a well recorded, well pressed vinyl record WITHOUT those unwanted artifacts, then he'd have something. You mention wow and flutter: One of the strangest and neurotic quirks of the "high-end" are the many expensive turntables that have come out in the last 25 years or so with fancy bearings, very heavy platters and various elaborate and exotic drive systems, of which one of the goals at least is to supposedly reduce wow and flutter to the vanishing point, and indeed they usually do to some extent. Then what happens is that end users play their records that have off-center spindle holes that swamps out in actual real world use by very large and very audible amounts, any residual wow and flutter that the fancy table has. Whenever I mention this, and I've brought it up several times here in this noisegroup, there are always the litany of replies that the off-center holes can be fixed with a little trial and error. This is true, although it's very difficult to get really accurate to insure the eccentricity (and thus the highly audible effect) is eliminated. Yet to this day, I have yet to know (other than myself, and I've been around a LOT) anyone in "high-end" that actually goes to this trouble and they end up listening to wow and flutter, usually seeming oblivious that it's really happening. The effect bothers the hell out of me. The only turntables that have addressed this in the design are the two Nakamichi tables made in the 80's, and they never sold very well. If I recall correctly, one reviewer called one of the models a "turkey" despite the fact that it effectively solved one of the very worst problems with vinyl playback. "High-end" is obsessed with tiny "differences" to the point where there is a lot of controversy about even the existence of some of the claimed "differences." At the same time, there is a lot of ignoring and ignorance of what are dramatic and highly audible faults such as this off-center hole issue, but also something arguably more important: room acoustics and the difficulties of getting speakers to couple to rooms properly. To illustrate this latter point, all one has to do is go to Audiogon in the speaker ads for private users (not dealers, although it can often be seen in those ads too) and notice pictures of systems with no room treatment whatsoever, or if there is some, very little of it. I think this phenomenon is really WEIRD, and reminiscent (in a different way of course) of the contradictions one finds in religious cults. - John |
|
#17
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Vinylizer
On Jul 29, 7:45=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message On Jul 27, 4:48=3DA0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Scott" wrote in message On Jul 25, 2:49=3D3DA0pm, bob wrote: Occasionally, during one of our long threads about vinyl vs. digital,someone suggests the invention of a "vinylizer," a knob that can dial in any amount of the various distortions characteristic of vinyl playback. Well, it isn't that simple yet, but technology finds a way: http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/vinyl/ Too bad this one completely missed the mark. It would be a good idea if it were done right without the cyncism. Maybe somebody who gets vinyl will make something that will actually do the job. What is "getting vinyl"? Understanding the sonic aesthetic virtues that can be found with vinyl. The facts about vinyl in approximate order of importance to most people: Sorry you don't get to speak for most people. Not only most but the vast majority of =A0people have ... Nope. You still don't get to speak for them. Sorry. :-) Especially given your well documented prejudices on vinyl. What prejudice of mine is that? Is it not true that my comments about vin= yl have been 100% factual, and backed by published, peer-reviewed technical papers, statistical evidence from reliable industry sources and decades o= f personal experience? I think it is fair to say that we disagree on many alleged actual facts about vinyl. But I am talking about your personal opinions that you have expressed about the quality of vinyl playback. Clearly those aesthetic opinions are not objective facts supported by published peer reviewed technical papers. As for your personal experience....IMO, based on what you have told us, it is lacking when it comes to world class vinyl playback and therefore not relevant. Also experience tends to be affected by prejudice to some degree so it's kinda hard to point to experience as proof of a lack of prejudice. This product misses the mark IMO. But you don't say why in a detailed, convincing way. What details do you need Arny? How about this? Everything it says it does....I don't want doen to the sound of my CDs. Everything. So if you need details review the descriptions of what it does. As for "convincing?" who do I need to convince? I am quite convinced by the description of what it does that the product misses the mark for me. In fact, you've presented no evidence that you've ever actually listened to it. That is true. I put some faith in the manufacturer's description of what the product does. Could it be that your opinions of it are based only on prejudice? No it is based on experience with the distortions detailed in the manufacturer's desciption and an assumption that the manufacturer is actually making good on the claims about what the product does. I am speaking as an audiophile who is interested in the aesthetic value of sound Given that you have presented no first hand information about the sound o= f this product... Excuse me for assuming the product delivers as advertised. Heck maybe it doesn't.... |
|
#18
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Vinylizer
On Jul 29, 7:51=A0pm, Dick Pierce wrote:
Audio Empire wrote: On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 07:45:47 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): [quoted text deleted -- deb] Not only most but the vast majority of =A0people have long since forgot= about vinyl. The RIAA market share data makes that quite clear. hundreds of manufacturers still make turntables, Hundreds of turntable manufacturers? HUNDREDS? Name 50 of them, 50 in business, in production, independent manufacturers of turntables. If I name fifty to I get a prize? http://www.stereomojo.com/TurntableM...urersLinks.htm Can we assume you mean high-fidelity, high quality playback turntables, or are you including those intended for DJ and similar uses? I would be willing to bet that at any given time in last 50 years there were never HUNDREDS of turntable manufacturers at any one time. Now, this is entirely apart from any claims or couterclaims about fidelity, desirability, personal satisfaction or anyhting else. I just find the claim of hundreds of turntable manufacturers to be unjustifiably hyperbolic. I suggest reading some of the back catalog of the old October issues of Audio that listed all known equipment at the time of the issue. Again, rumors of vinyl's demise is greatly exaggerated. Not in question per se, but I would assert that the claim of there being hundreds of turntable manufacturers to be, well, greatly exaggerated, with all due respect. It may well be but I would bet there are well over 100. My link was hardly to a comprehensive list and it had well over fifty. granted a few of those cited are not currently making turntables but just servicing existing ones. But that would be just a few out of that list. took me less than a minute to find that many. |
|
#19
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Vinylizer
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:51:06 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ): Audio Empire wrote: On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 07:45:47 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): [quoted text deleted -- deb] Not only most but the vast majority of people have long since forgot about vinyl. The RIAA market share data makes that quite clear. hundreds of manufacturers still make turntables, Hundreds of turntable manufacturers? HUNDREDS? Name 50 of them, 50 in business, in production, independent manufacturers of turntables. Can we assume you mean high-fidelity, high quality playback turntables, or are you including those intended for DJ and similar uses? I would be willing to bet that at any given time in last 50 years there were never HUNDREDS of turntable manufacturers at any one time. Now, this is entirely apart from any claims or couterclaims about fidelity, desirability, personal satisfaction or anyhting else. I just find the claim of hundreds of turntable manufacturers to be unjustifiably hyperbolic. Again, rumors of vinyl's demise is greatly exaggerated. Not in question per se, but I would assert that the claim of there being hundreds of turntable manufacturers to be, well, greatly exaggerated, with all due respect. OK, I was using hyperbole, But I bet I can name 50 if I tried real hard and did the research. And yes, I'm talking about "High Fidelity" not cheap DJ style tables. Just off the top of my head: Thorens J.A. Michelle S.M.E. Well Tempered Roksan Linn VPI Rega ClearAudio Music Hall Avid Oracle Pro-Ject SOTA Origin Live IsoKinetik Marantz E.A.T. Forte Pink Triangle Denon Walker Kuzma Stabi Voyd Ariston Systemdek Wilson Benesch Just off the top of my head, I've come up with 26, doing no research. And I know of about 4 German tables, several Swiss tables, at least as many Italian tables and god knows how many Chinese tables that I either don't know the names of, or have forgotten their names. At any rate, there are a healthy enough number of companies making tables to insure vinyl's future for a while - naysayers notwithstanding. |
|
#20
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Vinylizer
Dick Pierce said...
Hundreds of turntable manufacturers? HUNDREDS? Name 50 of them, 50 in business, in production, independent manufacturers of turntables. http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/turntable.html -- Ken O'Meara http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/ |
|
#21
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Vinylizer
On Jul 30, 6:00=A0am, John Nunes wrote:
On 7/29/2010 4:43 PM, Audio Empire wrote: Wouldn't the fact that this "Vinylizer" introduces wow, flutter, tracki= ng distortion, ticks and pops automatically disqualify it from serious consideration by ANY music lover? People who listen to vinyl, at least = in my considerable experience, still listen to it because of two distinct and different reasons. One faction holds that LP sounds "better" than digit= al, and the other faction sees LP as just another source of music (that's t= he faction to which I, mostly, belong), like CD, FM radio, tape, downloads= from the internet, etc. Neither like warp wow, eccentric records, ticks or p= ops, mis-tracking, Inner-groove distortion, or any of the other ills that ca= n plague vinyl playback, and most, if not all vinyl listeners strive to a= void those things. The fact that this "Vinylizer seems to re-introduce these unwanted artifacts to digital playback is missing the point. Now if it = made digital SOUND like a well recorded, well pressed vinyl record WITHOUT t= hose unwanted artifacts, then he'd have something. You mention wow and flutter: One of the strangest and neurotic quirks of the "high-end" are the many expensive turntables that have come out in the last 25 years or so with fancy bearings, very heavy platters and various elaborate and exotic drive systems, of which one of the goals at least is to supposedly reduce wow and flutter to the vanishing point, and indeed they usually do to some extent. Then what happens is that end users play their records that have off-center spindle holes that swamps out in actual real world use by very large and very audible amounts, any residual wow and flutter that the fancy table has. Whenever I mention this, and I've brought it up several times here in this noisegroup, there are always the litany of replies that the off-center holes can be fixed with a little trial and error. =A0This is true, although it's very difficult to get really accurate to insure the eccentricity (and thus the highly audible effect) is eliminated. =A0Yet t= o this day, I have yet to know (other than myself, and I've been around a LOT) anyone in "high-end" that actually goes to this trouble and they end up listening to wow and flutter, usually seeming oblivious that it's really happening. =A0The effect bothers the hell out of me. The only turntables that have addressed this in the design are the two Nakamichi tables made in the 80's, and they never sold very well. =A0If I recall correctly, one reviewer called one of the models a "turkey" despite the fact that it effectively solved one of the very worst problems with vinyl playback. "High-end" is obsessed with tiny "differences" to the point where there is a lot of controversy about even the existence of some of the claimed "differences." =A0At the same time, there is a lot of ignoring and ignorance of what are dramatic and highly audible faults such as this off-center hole issue, but also something arguably more important: room acoustics and the difficulties of getting speakers to couple to rooms properly. =A0To illustrate this latter point, all one has to do is go to Audiogon in the speaker ads for private users (not dealers, although it can often be seen in those ads too) and notice pictures of systems with no room treatment whatsoever, or if there is some, very little of it. I think this phenomenon is really WEIRD, and reminiscent (in a different way of course) of the contradictions one finds in religious cults. - John Eccentric records only introduce wow, not flutter. And yes it is audible depending on the severity. But IME wiht most LPs it is not an issue and would only be noticable to those who, for whatever reason, are very very sensitive to that sepcific problem. I don't know of anyone who wishes to *add* wow or flutter to the sound of their playback though. |
|
#22
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Vinylizer
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 06:00:02 -0700, John Nunes wrote
(in article ): On 7/29/2010 4:43 PM, Audio Empire wrote: Wouldn't the fact that this "Vinylizer" introduces wow, flutter, tracking distortion, ticks and pops automatically disqualify it from serious consideration by ANY music lover? People who listen to vinyl, at least in my considerable experience, still listen to it because of two distinct and different reasons. One faction holds that LP sounds "better" than digital, and the other faction sees LP as just another source of music (that's the faction to which I, mostly, belong), like CD, FM radio, tape, downloads from the internet, etc. Neither like warp wow, eccentric records, ticks or pops, mis-tracking, Inner-groove distortion, or any of the other ills that can plague vinyl playback, and most, if not all vinyl listeners strive to avoid those things. The fact that this "Vinylizer seems to re-introduce these unwanted artifacts to digital playback is missing the point. Now if it made digital SOUND like a well recorded, well pressed vinyl record WITHOUT those unwanted artifacts, then he'd have something. You mention wow and flutter: One of the strangest and neurotic quirks of the "high-end" are the many expensive turntables that have come out in the last 25 years or so with fancy bearings, very heavy platters and various elaborate and exotic drive systems, of which one of the goals at least is to supposedly reduce wow and flutter to the vanishing point, and indeed they usually do to some extent. Then what happens is that end users play their records that have off-center spindle holes that swamps out in actual real world use by very large and very audible amounts, any residual wow and flutter that the fancy table has. There's very little a record player company can do about warped or eccentric records, but there have been attempts. Some Japanese company (I forget which) came out with a very expensive 'table in the late '80's (I believe) which used a very strong vacuum to pull a warped record hard to the patter (of course a badly warped record couldn't be helped because the record had to be flat enough to begin with to be able to pull a vacuum under it) and it used the tone arm as a "centricity" sensor. When the arm tried to play an eccentric (off center) record it would swing too-and-fro with the eccentricity. Using sensors in the arm itself, the spindle, itself mounted off-center, would move, thus moving the record until the arm swing was nulled-out. I have no idea how well these systems worked as I've never actually seen one of these 'tables. just read about it. Whenever I mention this, and I've brought it up several times here in this noisegroup, there are always the litany of replies that the off-center holes can be fixed with a little trial and error. This is true, although it's very difficult to get really accurate to insure the eccentricity (and thus the highly audible effect) is eliminated. Yet to this day, I have yet to know (other than myself, and I've been around a LOT) anyone in "high-end" that actually goes to this trouble and they end up listening to wow and flutter, usually seeming oblivious that it's really happening. The effect bothers the hell out of me. It bothers me as well. I used to take records back when I encountered this phenomenon. But when that was impossible or impractical (I used have traveling friends and collegues buy records for me in places like London or Paris or Moscow and bring them back), I'd use a rat-tail file to enlarge the hole and then put an arrow on the label with a pen to indicate where on the periphery of the hole I should have the spindle touching. This meant that I only had to find the venter ONCE. The only turntables that have addressed this in the design are the two Nakamichi tables made in the 80's, and they never sold very well. If I recall correctly, one reviewer called one of the models a "turkey" despite the fact that it effectively solved one of the very worst problems with vinyl playback. Yep, that's the one I was referring to above. That it wasn't a very good record deck (few of those Japanese direct-drive units were) doesn't surprise me. I don't even know if it was effective at it's "selling point" tasks of addressing warped and eccentric records. "High-end" is obsessed with tiny "differences" to the point where there is a lot of controversy about even the existence of some of the claimed "differences." At the same time, there is a lot of ignoring and ignorance of what are dramatic and highly audible faults such as this off-center hole issue, but also something arguably more important: room acoustics and the difficulties of getting speakers to couple to rooms properly. To illustrate this latter point, all one has to do is go to Audiogon in the speaker ads for private users (not dealers, although it can often be seen in those ads too) and notice pictures of systems with no room treatment whatsoever, or if there is some, very little of it. I think this phenomenon is really WEIRD, and reminiscent (in a different way of course) of the contradictions one finds in religious cults. To be fair, although I've encountered warped records from all labels and genres, but I've only encountered eccentric records with "light music" labels (folk, rock, film soundtracks, broadway musical cast albums, etc.) I don't ever remember getting an eccentric classical record, even from cheap labels like Vox, RCA Victrola, CBS Odyssey, Angel Seraphim, etc. Even records made in what were then Socialist, "Iron Curtain" countries, like "Hungarotone", East German "Parlophone", and the Soviet "Melodya" records were generally all pretty well made using 100% virgin vinyl, usually at least 180 grams weight (sometimes 200 grams) and never off-center. Of course, ANY record, even the most carefully manufactured ones, can warp AFTER manufacture. It just needs to be poorly packed at some point and sit in a rail car on a siding for a couple of days in 100 degree summer heat.... |
|
#23
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Vinylizer
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 07:45:47 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Scott" wrote in message On Jul 27, 4:48=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Scott" wrote in message On Jul 25, 2:49=3DA0pm, bob wrote: Occasionally, during one of our long threads about vinyl vs. digital,someone suggests the invention of a "vinylizer," a knob that can dial in any amount of the various distortions characteristic of vinyl playback. Well, it isn't that simple yet, but technology finds a way: http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/vinyl/ Too bad this one completely missed the mark. It would be a good idea if it were done right without the cyncism. Maybe somebody who gets vinyl will make something that will actually do the job. What is "getting vinyl"? Understanding the sonic aesthetic virtues that can be found with vinyl. The facts about vinyl in approximate order of importance to most people: Sorry you don't get to speak for most people. Not only most but the vast majority of people have long since forgot about vinyl. The RIAA market share data makes that quite clear. Yet enough people DO value vinyl that records are still pressed and hundreds of manufacturers still make turntables, some costing a small fortune, Cartridges are still available at all price points from $20 on the low end to tens of thousands on the high end with new ones being introduced all the time. Not to mention a myriad of phono preamps available, again at all price points, as well as recently introduced preamps and integrated amps that have phono stages either built-in as standard or available as an option. Two words: Niche products. Again, rumors of vinyl's demise is greatly exaggerated. Especially given your well documented prejudices on vinyl. What prejudice of mine is that? Is it not true that my comments about vinyl have been 100% factual, and backed by published, peer-reviewed technical papers, statistical evidence from reliable industry sources and decades of personal experience? Your facts are not in question here. Your obvious and oft stated disdain for vinyl is what gives away your prejudice. That's where you've got me wrong. I have no more or less disdain for vinyl than I have for any other audio media with similar performance levels. Furthermore, I have repeated defended the use of vinyl based on the unique musical content that it carries. This product misses the mark IMO. But you don't say why in a detailed, convincing way. In fact, you've presented no evidence that you've ever actually listened to it. Could it be that your opinions of it are based only on prejudice? I am speaking as an audiophile who is interested in the aesthetic value of sound Given that you have presented no first hand information about the sound of this product... Wouldn't the fact that this "Vinylizer" introduces wow, flutter, tracking distortion, ticks and pops automatically disqualify it from serious consideration by ANY music lover? Those very same performance problems do not diqualify vinyl itself, according to the paragraph that forms your initial response to my post. People who listen to vinyl, at least in my considerable experience, still listen to it because of two distinct and different reasons. One faction holds that LP sounds "better" than digital, and the other faction sees LP as just another source of music (that's the faction to which I, mostly, belong), like CD, FM radio, tape, downloads from the internet, etc. Neither like warp wow, eccentric records, ticks or pops, mis-tracking, Inner-groove distortion, or any of the other ills that can plague vinyl playback, and most, if not all vinyl listeners strive to avoid those things. The fact that this "Vinylizer seems to re-introduce these unwanted artifacts to digital playback is missing the point. Now if it made digital SOUND like a well recorded, well pressed vinyl record WITHOUT those unwanted artifacts, then he'd have something. I see a misidentification of a problem that we all agree exists. Digital recordings on occasion fail to sound good simply because they are accurate reproducers of mediocre technical work. Saying that DIGITAL needs some add-on to make it sound good rather obviously paints all forms of digital media with the same overly-broad brush. Anybody who is familiar with the ins and outs of the process of producing musical recordings should be well-aware of the fact that there is no single magic box that will undo all of the careless and slipshod work that has been recorded on digital. Indicting DIGITAL, as we frequently see being done here is a clear case of shooting the messenger. |
|
#24
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Vinylizer
"Scott" wrote in message
On Jul 29, 7:51=A0pm, Dick Pierce wrote: Audio Empire wrote: On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 07:45:47 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): [quoted text deleted -- deb] Not only most but the vast majority of =A0people have long since forgot= about vinyl. The RIAA market share data makes that quite clear. hundreds of manufacturers still make turntables, Hundreds of turntable manufacturers? HUNDREDS? Name 50 of them, 50 in business, in production, independent manufacturers of turntables. If I name fifty to I get a prize? http://www.stereomojo.com/TurntableM...urersLinks.htm Scott, you still need to document that the list is composed 100% of manufacturers who are in business and have independent products. There's obviously some rebranding going on. One need read only a few items on the list you linked to see that the list may be bogus - since when is the well-known online retailer Amazon an independent producer of turntables? Or is this a reference to "Amazon Audio Products" (note my detective work and probable indentification of the complete name of an actual German turntable manufacturer), thus putting the accuracy and completeness of the list in a poor light from the standpoint of accuracy and completeness of its entries? |
|
#25
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Vinylizer
"Scott" wrote in message
Eccentric records only introduce wow, not flutter. And yes it is audible depending on the severity. Yes. However another irreducable problem - the non-flatness of the vinyl causes FM distortion with high enough frequency content to qualify as flutter. There there is the inherent FM distortion due to bass modulation and tone arms that are not linear tracking. But IME wiht most LPs it is not an issue and would only be noticable to those who, for whatever reason, are very very sensitive to that sepcific problem. We hear this from people who favor vinyl all the time. This suggests to me that there must be some kind of highly selective hearing disorder that causes people to have substandard levels of sensitivity to FM distoriton. I don't know of anyone who wishes to *add* wow or flutter to the sound of their playback though. From the standpoint of those of us who are so sensitive to FM distortion that we avoid LPs playback whereever possible, we tend to see those who listen to LPs that have been reissued as good CDs as being in the category of people who wish to *add* wow or flutter to the sound of their playback. |
|
#26
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Vinylizer
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 06:09:44 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Scott" wrote in message On Jul 29, 7:51=A0pm, Dick Pierce wrote: Audio Empire wrote: On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 07:45:47 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): [quoted text deleted -- deb] Not only most but the vast majority of =A0people have long since forgot= about vinyl. The RIAA market share data makes that quite clear. hundreds of manufacturers still make turntables, Hundreds of turntable manufacturers? HUNDREDS? Name 50 of them, 50 in business, in production, independent manufacturers of turntables. If I name fifty to I get a prize? http://www.stereomojo.com/TurntableM...urersLinks.htm Scott, you still need to document that the list is composed 100% of manufacturers who are in business and have independent products. There's obviously some rebranding going on. I know of none. While it's true that some Rega, Music Hall, and Pro-ject low-end tables are very similar, but if you look at them in the flesh, you will see that they are not the same units at all. One need read only a few items on the list you linked to see that the list may be bogus - since when is the well-known online retailer Amazon an independent producer of turntables? Or is this a reference to "Amazon Audio Products" (note my detective work and probable indentification of the complete name of an actual German turntable manufacturer), thus putting the accuracy and completeness of the list in a poor light from the standpoint of accuracy and completeness of its entries? That's true. Amazon does not make turntables (or any other audio products). There are easily 50 manufacturers making so-called high-end tables today, perhaps more, but unlike my earlier flight of hyperbole, I think you'd really have to struggle to reach 100. Still and all, that's a lot of manufacturers vying for a piece of what is a pretty small market. I will predict this, that vinyl production will outlive the physical CD. |
|
#27
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Vinylizer
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 06:10:00 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Scott" wrote in message Eccentric records only introduce wow, not flutter. And yes it is audible depending on the severity. Yes. However another irreducable problem - the non-flatness of the vinyl causes FM distortion with high enough frequency content to qualify as flutter. There there is the inherent FM distortion due to bass modulation and tone arms that are not linear tracking. Actually, the distortions caused by properly designed and set-up radial tracking arms turns out to be negligible, and the advantages of linear tracking turn out to be a tertiary effect. But IME wiht most LPs it is not an issue and would only be noticable to those who, for whatever reason, are very very sensitive to that sepcific problem. We hear this from people who favor vinyl all the time. This suggests to me that there must be some kind of highly selective hearing disorder that causes people to have substandard levels of sensitivity to FM distoriton. It's not any more of a disorder than the ability of concert goers to listen "around" sneezes and coughs and program rattling that occurs constantly during most concerts. I don't know of anyone who wishes to *add* wow or flutter to the sound of their playback though. From the standpoint of those of us who are so sensitive to FM distortion that we avoid LPs playback whereever possible, we tend to see those who listen to LPs that have been reissued as good CDs as being in the category of people who wish to *add* wow or flutter to the sound of their playback. Then you'd be wrong. Most vinyl listeners don't listen to records that are warped, eccentric, of full of FM distortion. I know that I don't. |
|
#28
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Vinylizer
On Aug 2, 6:10=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message Eccentric records only introduce wow, not flutter. And yes it is audible depending on the severity. Yes. However another irreducable problem - the non-flatness of the vinyl causes FM distortion with high enough frequency content to qualify as flutter. There there is the inherent FM distortion due to bass modulation and tone arms that are not linear tracking. But IME wiht most LPs it is not an issue and would only be noticable to those who, for whatever reason, are very very sensitive to that sepcific problem. We hear this from people who favor vinyl all the time. This suggests to me that there must be some kind of highly selective hearing disorder that causes people to have substandard levels of sensitivity to FM distoriton. It would be interesting to put your ability to the test under blind conditions to hear all those nasty distortions on a real high end player with a quality LP. I know that will never happen but my money would be against you. And you wonder why some of us think you have a severe prejudice against vinyl? Do show us the peer reviewed published literature that supports this nonsense about those of us with this alleged "hearing disorder." I don't know of anyone who wishes to *add* wow or flutter to the sound of their playback though. From the standpoint of those of us who are so sensitive to FM distortion that we avoid LPs playback whereever possible, we tend to see those who listen to LPs that have been reissued as good CDs as being in the categor= y of people who wish to *add* wow or flutter to the sound of their playback= |
|
#29
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Vinylizer
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 06:09:30 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 07:45:47 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Scott" wrote in message On Jul 27, 4:48=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Scott" wrote in message On Jul 25, 2:49=3DA0pm, bob wrote: Occasionally, during one of our long threads about vinyl vs. digital,someone suggests the invention of a "vinylizer," a knob that can dial in any amount of the various distortions characteristic of vinyl playback. Well, it isn't that simple yet, but technology finds a way: http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/vinyl/ Too bad this one completely missed the mark. It would be a good idea if it were done right without the cyncism. Maybe somebody who gets vinyl will make something that will actually do the job. What is "getting vinyl"? Understanding the sonic aesthetic virtues that can be found with vinyl. The facts about vinyl in approximate order of importance to most people: Sorry you don't get to speak for most people. Not only most but the vast majority of people have long since forgot about vinyl. The RIAA market share data makes that quite clear. Yet enough people DO value vinyl that records are still pressed and hundreds of manufacturers still make turntables, some costing a small fortune, Cartridges are still available at all price points from $20 on the low end to tens of thousands on the high end with new ones being introduced all the time. Not to mention a myriad of phono preamps available, again at all price points, as well as recently introduced preamps and integrated amps that have phono stages either built-in as standard or available as an option. Two words: Niche products. One word: Irrelevant. MacDonalds sells more hamburgers in an hour than Morton's or Ruth's Chris steak houses sell steaks in a year, does that make these "high-end" restaurants "niche" restaurants? Market share is no indication of viability in markets catering to different strata of the same market or different markets. Again, rumors of vinyl's demise is greatly exaggerated. Especially given your well documented prejudices on vinyl. What prejudice of mine is that? Is it not true that my comments about vinyl have been 100% factual, and backed by published, peer-reviewed technical papers, statistical evidence from reliable industry sources and decades of personal experience? Your facts are not in question here. Your obvious and oft stated disdain for vinyl is what gives away your prejudice. That's where you've got me wrong. I have no more or less disdain for vinyl than I have for any other audio media with similar performance levels. You should re-read the above. Your disdain for vinyl is palpable here and I don't believe we've ever discussed "other audio media with similar performance levels". Furthermore, I have repeated defended the use of vinyl based on the unique musical content that it carries. There's a phrase that covers that. It's called "damning with faint praise". This product misses the mark IMO. But you don't say why in a detailed, convincing way. In fact, you've presented no evidence that you've ever actually listened to it. Could it be that your opinions of it are based only on prejudice? I am speaking as an audiophile who is interested in the aesthetic value of sound Given that you have presented no first hand information about the sound of this product... Wouldn't the fact that this "Vinylizer" introduces wow, flutter, tracking distortion, ticks and pops automatically disqualify it from serious consideration by ANY music lover? Those very same performance problems do not diqualify vinyl itself, That's because those are not inherent qualities of phonograph records themselves, they are, however, possible DEFECTS in phonograph records. I must say that my collection exhibits very few of any of those defects. And while they might show-up more often than any record listener might like, it does, in no way. alter the fact that these defects are unwanted. according to the paragraph that forms your initial response to my post. People who listen to vinyl, at least in my considerable experience, still listen to it because of two distinct and different reasons. One faction holds that LP sounds "better" than digital, and the other faction sees LP as just another source of music (that's the faction to which I, mostly, belong), like CD, FM radio, tape, downloads from the internet, etc. Neither like warp wow, eccentric records, ticks or pops, mis-tracking, Inner-groove distortion, or any of the other ills that can plague vinyl playback, and most, if not all vinyl listeners strive to avoid those things. The fact that this "Vinylizer seems to re-introduce these unwanted artifacts to digital playback is missing the point. Now if it made digital SOUND like a well recorded, well pressed vinyl record WITHOUT those unwanted artifacts, then he'd have something. I see a misidentification of a problem that we all agree exists. Digital recordings on occasion fail to sound good simply because they are accurate reproducers of mediocre technical work. I wish that were true. The fact is that most CD releases do not represent, accurately, the information that is on the master tape. CD is capable, with out being a so-called "high-resolution" format such as SACD or DVD-A or even high-definition download formats such as 24/96 or 24/192, of much higher levels of performance than most commercial releases put on them. Fact is, most commercial releases, irrespective of the level of performance available on CD or other digital media, is a pale shadow of the master. I've heard it dozens of times. One here's a master or a copy of a master, and then buys the CD when it's released only to find that it's been compressed and limited and had whatever else done to it to render it extremely disappointing. This seems to be the rule rather than the exception and I don't know why. CD can be astonishingly good, but it rarely is - even so-called "audiophile releases" sound nowhere as good as the digital masters from which they were cut. Hell, I have highly touted recordings where the vinyl reissue sounds so much better than the CD of the same performance, that it's hard to believe that both renditions came from the same master tape. Saying that DIGITAL needs some add-on to make it sound good rather obviously paints all forms of digital media with the same overly-broad brush. Nothing wrong with digital. It's potentially as good as technology can provide. There is a lot wrong with most releases, however. It's funny that a lot of people spend a lot of money and time chasing these high-resolution formats around the Internet, when the truth is that most of them have never even heard a glimpse of what plain-old Redbook CD is capable of doing. I play Redbook CDs for people made from my own digital recordings without any signal processing whatsoever, and their jaws drop at the quality. Most have simply never heard anything that sounded THAT real. The funny part is, it's relatively easy to make recordings of this quality. Why commercial interests feel that they have to water recordings down so much before releasing them is beyond me. Anybody who is familiar with the ins and outs of the process of producing musical recordings should be well-aware of the fact that there is no single magic box that will undo all of the careless and slipshod work that has been recorded on digital. While that is true as well, a lot of seems to me to be deliberate. Indicting DIGITAL, as we frequently see being done here is a clear case of shooting the messenger. Well, you certainly won't find me condemning digital AS A PROCESS, but I will condemn what most commercial record companies do with it. And increasing the bit-rate and depth won't help much because most of those so-called high-resolution releases are flawed in the same manner as the Redbook releases of the same materials. Like I have often said on this forum. Vinyl LP is NOT the end-all or the be-all of high-fidelity listening, but it is another viable source of music (KEY phrase here). Often, it's preferred to the digital releases of the same recordings because it's more honest to the original master tape than are the digital releases. It just seems that often, the processing that occurs in vinyl mastering does less audible (or at least more musically pleasing) damage to what was captured on the "master tape" than is the CD mastering of the same material. Again, I don't pretend to know why this would be so. All I know is that it's there for all to hear who want to hear it. But again, (Another KEY phrase coming) regular old Redbook CD is capable of astonishing levels of quality playback, but the average consumer doesn't get to hear that quality because it's NOT transferred to the CD by the record companies. |
|
#30
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Vinylizer
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
... No one is denying there's a market. But you and everyone else have yet to show that it is not a niche market, and, by sheer annual unit salkes, NOT by the nu,ber of manufacturers, it is a very SMALL market, especially compared to what it was in the early to mid 1970's. If you want to dispute those facts, go argue with the LP equipment and media manufacturers, it's their numbers. Now, once again, this is not syaing LPs are bad, LPs are good, or LPs are anything one way or another. But the simple fact is that it's a very much smaller market than it used to be. -- I haven't heard anybody in years argue that it is anything but a niche market, Dick, and certainly not Audio Empire. What he has argued, and I and others as well, is that it is a growing market, and not just a DJ market. It has caught on among a segment of the younger folk, and not only old vinyl but many new recordings are being released on vinyl....and it is not just craven pop music...Allen Toussaint's recent award-winning jazz recording "The Bright Mississippi" has been released on vinyl, for instance. That's all Audio Empire or anybody else who is serious has said. But even saying that much seems to bring out a chorusline of vinyl-phobics. |
|
#31
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Vinylizer
On Aug 2, 12:38=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
There are easily 50 manufacturers making so-called high-end tables today, perhaps more, but unlike my earlier flight of hyperbole, I think you'd re= ally have to struggle to reach 100. Still and all, that's a lot of manufacture= rs vying for a piece of what is a pretty small market. The reason there are a lot of little manufacturers is that the market is too small to attract a larger maker who could take advantage of economies of scale. A healthier market might actually see fewer but larger producers. A better way to make the case for the continued vitality of this (admittedly tiny) market is to look at the major retailers. Best Buy and Crutchfield now carry Pro-Ject. J&R carries Music Hall. That's far more significant than some guy making 5 $20,000 tables a year in his garage. I will predict this, that vinyl production will outlive the physical CD. And I will predict that 16/44.1 will still be the standard for uncompressed digital audio after the last vinyl plant closes.Only the distribution channel will change. bob |
|
#32
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Vinylizer
On Aug 2, 10:19=A0am, Dick Pierce wrote:
No one is denying there's a market. But you and everyone else have yet to show that it is not a niche market, and, by sheer annual unit salkes, NOT by the nu,ber of manufacturers, it is a very SMALL market, especially compared to what it was in the early to mid 1970's. If you want to dispute those facts, go argue with the LP equipment and media manufacturers, it's their numbers. Now, once again, this is not syaing LPs are bad, LPs are good, or LPs are anything one way or another. But the simple fact is that it's a very much smaller market than it used to be. Yep. It is a niche market and much smaller than it used to be. Probably a good thing for audiophiles. Not probably, definitely. The market for hardware and vinyl is certainly in a golden age when it comes to quality. It may not be a "big" market but it sure is a "good" market. That is what matters to me. |
|
#33
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Vinylizer
In article ,
"Harry Lavo" wrote: What he has argued, and I and others as well, is that it is a growing market, and not just a DJ market. It has caught on among a segment of the younger folk, and not only old vinyl but many new recordings are being released on vinyl....and it is not just craven pop music...Allen Toussaint's recent award-winning jazz recording "The Bright Mississippi" has been released on vinyl, for instance. That's all Audio Empire or anybody else who is serious has said. But even saying that much seems to bring out a chorusline of vinyl-phobics. So true. All I have said, for example, is that I like some LPs, and that the best recorded sound that I have heard in my or anyone else's home was from a few excellent examples of the medium and the hardware. I have further pointed out that I believe that overall, CD is the better medium and that I own many more CDs than LPs. For my trouble, I was branded as a "vinyl bigot." Go figure. ALL physical media are down in sales compared to a few years ago. That's a fact. It's also a fact that many new releases are now released on LP, and if one knows anything about retail, one knows that shelf space is valuable and vendors are not likely to waste space on something that is not going to sell. |
|
#34
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Vinylizer
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 06:09:30 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): I see a misidentification of a problem that we all agree exists. Digital recordings on occasion fail to sound good simply because they are accurate reproducers of mediocre technical work. I wish that were true. It's truth is proven fact. The fact is that most CD releases do not represent, accurately, the information that is on the master tape. It takes considerable naivate about the normal production process to consider that to be a technical flaw. Master tapes very frequently are not commerically acceptable when they are accurate representations of the master tape. That's why mastering engineers are still a valuable resource. Commerical recordings must satisfy a large number of listeners to be good commercial products. Musical recordings often have excess dynamics and often contain excess power at the low end of the audible spectrum to sound acceptable in the limited environments that most consumers listen to them in. |
|
#35
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Vinylizer
In article ,
Jenn wrote: ALL physical media are down in sales compared to a few years ago. That's a fact. It's also a fact that many new releases are now released on LP, and if one knows anything about retail, one knows that shelf space is valuable and vendors are not likely to waste space on something that is not going to sell. Absolutely. I haven't been in to physical music store in years! And when they start offering uncompressed albums, I won't be buying physical CD's either. Greg |
|
#36
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Vinylizer
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
I haven't heard anybody in years argue that it is anything but a niche market, Dick, and certainly not Audio Empire. I just showed again that while nobody who knows what's going on can argue that vinyl is anything but a niche market, we see plenty of examples of where its advocates can't just leave it at that. We still get all this rah-rah about how many manufacturers there are, and how many dozens of new releases of media there are. Nobody knows how big the entire digital music market is since so much product bypasses the channels that RIAA monitors. It still takes a pressing plant to make LPs, while anybody who can upload to UTube can move 100,000s of copies of their latest hit in a few days after playing the music in their bedroom. What he has argued, and I and others as well, is that it is a growing market, and not just a DJ market. Nobody who knows whats going on says that LP is just a DJ market, but even the DJ segment is suffering at the hands of digital hardware and software that simulates scratching. The DJ maket is about quick setup and takedown, so hauling 100's of LPs is very counter-productive. The numerical growth of late has been in ca. $100 USB-based LP players. They are plastic novelty items. Their sound quality is generally substandard, even for vinyl. Frankly, many of them damage or destroy precious legacy media with as little as one playing. |
|
#37
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Vinylizer
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 06:10:00 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Scott" wrote in message Eccentric records only introduce wow, not flutter. And yes it is audible depending on the severity. Yes. However another irreducable problem - the non-flatness of the vinyl causes FM distortion with high enough frequency content to qualify as flutter. There there is the inherent FM distortion due to bass modulation and tone arms that are not linear tracking. Actually, the distortions caused by properly designed and set-up radial tracking arms turns out to be negligible, and the advantages of linear tracking turn out to be a tertiary effect. Actually, the distortions produced by LP playback systems incorporating the best designed tone arms that utilize any technology turns out to be readily audible. Whether a given person perceives these potentially audible distoritons is up to them, but if they fail to perceive them then they are somehow missing spurious responses that are well above the normal human thesholds for reliable perception of linear and nonlinear distortion. But IME wiht most LPs it is not an issue and would only be noticable to those who, for whatever reason, are very very sensitive to that sepcific problem. We hear this from people who favor vinyl all the time. This suggests to me that there must be some kind of highly selective hearing disorder that causes people to have substandard levels of sensitivity to FM distortion. It's not any more of a disorder than the ability of concert goers to listen "around" sneezes and coughs and program rattling that occurs constantly during most concerts. Coughs and sneezes at concerts are relatively infrequent, while the potentially audible noise and distortion that is inherent in vinyl is unending. It starts when the needle is dropped and it continues until it is lifted up. To enjoy vinyl you have to listen past the ongoing racket of potentially readily audible noise and distortion. I don't know of anyone who wishes to *add* wow or flutter to the sound of their playback though. From the standpoint of those of us who are so sensitive to FM distortion that we avoid LPs playback wherever possible, we tend to see those who listen to LPs that have been reissued as good CDs as being in the category of people who wish to *add* wow or flutter to the sound of their playback. Then you'd be wrong. Most vinyl listeners don't listen to records that are warped, eccentric, of full of FM distortion. I know that I don't. Whether you perceive this ongoing racket or not is up to you, but it is very easy to measure this noise and distortion using legacy measurement equipment that finds modern media to be free of distortion. |
|
#38
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Vinylizer
"Scott" wrote in message
It would be interesting to put your ability to the test under blind conditions to hear all those nasty distortions on a real high end player with a quality LP. It's already been done, and it is a slam dunk. The LP format audible mangles any music that you record on it. Here's the challenge. Produce 2 CDs. One of the finished recording that will be mastered to LP, and one of the best possible transcription of that recording from a LP made from the same master as was used to make the CD. It is easy to show that a CD can easily be a sonically transparent copy of the original master *and* the LP playback. It is easy to show that the digital transcription of the LP will not produce random guessing in an ABX comparison of the two. They won't sound just a little different. I've already come as close to doing this comparison as I could with the resources available to me, years ago. If you want to try to reduce me to random guessing, then its up to you to find better resources. Once you have produced your new, improved evidence, then I will sucessfully ABX them with an audience of witnesses. I am confident that if you collect this evidence, you will first listen to them yourself and you will be so disappointed that you will never send it to me. I know that will never happen but my money would be against you. You already lost the bet. And you wonder why some of us think you have a severe prejudice against vinyl? I wonder about claims that are so easily falsified. Do show us the peer reviewed published literature that supports this nonsense about those of us with this alleged "hearing disorder." The formal, peer-reviewed literature of the irreducable audible distortion that inherent in vinyl was published in the JAES and IEEE proceedings back in the days when vinyl was all we had. I've cited it here many times. |
|
#39
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Vinylizer
On Aug 2, 6:10=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message Eccentric records only introduce wow, not flutter. And yes it is audible depending on the severity. Yes. However another irreducable problem - the non-flatness of the vinyl causes FM distortion with high enough frequency content to qualify as flutter. There there is the inherent FM distortion due to bass modulation and tone arms that are not linear tracking. But IME wiht most LPs it is not an issue and would only be noticable to those who, for whatever reason, are very very sensitive to that sepcific problem. We hear this from people who favor vinyl all the time. This suggests to me that there must be some kind of highly selective hearing disorder that causes people to have substandard levels of sensitivity to FM distoriton. It would be interesting to put your ability to the test under blind conditions to hear all those nasty distortions on a real high end player with a quality LP. I know that will never happen but my money would be against you. And you wonder why some of us think you have a severe prejudice against vinyl? Do show us the peer reviewed published literature that supports this nonsense about those of us with this alleged "hearing disorder." I don't know of anyone who wishes to *add* wow or flutter to the sound of their playback though. From the standpoint of those of us who are so sensitive to FM distortion that we avoid LPs playback whereever possible, we tend to see those who listen to LPs that have been reissued as good CDs as being in the categor= y of people who wish to *add* wow or flutter to the sound of their playback= |
|
#40
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Vinylizer
On Aug 3, 12:10=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message It would be interesting to put your ability to the test under blind conditions to hear all those nasty distortions on a real high end player with a quality LP. It's already been done, and it is a slam dunk. Please excuse my skepticism but you haven't done it with my rig and my records. If you can identify those distortions by ear with my stuff I will certainly concede the point. I just don't have any faith in your alleged "slam dunk." When you "dunk on me" then you can do a little NBA style trash talkin. Till then it's just talkin. The LP format audible mangles any music that you record on it. Here's the challenge. Produce 2 CDs. =A0One of the finished recording tha= t will be mastered to LP, and one of the best possible transcription of tha= t recording from a LP made from the same master as was used to make the CD.= It is easy to show that a CD can easily be a sonically transparent copy of t= he original master *and* the LP playback. It is easy to show that the digita= l transcription of the LP will not produce random guessing in an ABX comparison of the two. =A0They won't sound just a little different. I've already come as close to doing this comparison as I could with the resources available to me, years ago. If you want to try to reduce me to random guessing, then its up to you to find better resources. =A0Once you= have produced your new, improved evidence, then I will sucessfully ABX them wi= th an audience of witnesses. I am confident that if you collect this evidence, you will first listen t= o them yourself and you will be so disappointed that you will never send it= to me. How about this for a challenge. When I get the system out of storage after I make the big move, I record several of my LPs on my rig on 24/96 and then down load some CDs. Let's say twenty samples. Then you, by ear, identify which ones are vinyl and which ones are not. I mean if they are as distorted as you say you should get 20 out of 20 but I'd be willing to set the bar at 16 correct answers as proof that you really can hear those distortions even on my system with my LPs of choice. I know that will never happen but my money would be against you. You already lost the bet. No we haven't got to the bet. If you want to make my challenge interesting feel free to make me a proposition. As for now the challenge is for bragging rights. Show me you can identify vinyl by ear because of these distortions on my rig with my LPs and you win. Should be easy no? And you wonder why some of us think you have a severe prejudice against vinyl? I wonder about claims that are so easily falsified. Well my claim is you will fail in the test I am proposing. Wanna "falsify" it? Do show us the peer reviewed published literature that supports this nonsense about those of us with this alleged "hearing disorder." The formal, peer-reviewed literature of the irreducable audible distortio= n that inherent in vinyl was published in the JAES and IEEE proceedings bac= k in the days when vinyl was all we had. I've cited it here many times. Sorry but that is a no show. |
Linear Mode
