[[email protected]]

Are there any turntables that could possibly play a 16" disc that are
not rare and/or expensive? Even if they coulnd't play at the right
speed or sound great or even reach the entire length of the disc, I
would still be happy. All I've been able to find are $1500 antiques,
something I will never have.

[Eeyore]

wrote:

Are there any turntables that could possibly play a 16" disc that are
not rare and/or expensive?

No.

Graham

[Phil Allison]

Are there any turntables that could possibly play a 16" disc that are
not rare and/or expensive?


** Of course it is possible - I could easily play one on my turntable.


Even if they coulnd't play at the right
speed or sound great or even reach the entire length of the disc, I
would still be happy.


** Most 16 inch discs are 33.3 rpm so play on a standard 12 inch hi-fi
turntable table - with 2 inchs of overhang.

What you have to find is a turntable / arm combination where the arm's base
is spaced away from the platter by at least 2 inches - not uncommon at
all with the better quality arms made.




........ Phil

[Phil Allison]

Are there any turntables that could possibly play a 16" disc that are
not rare and/or expensive?


** Look out for something like this one:

http://cgi.ebay.com.au/VINTAGE-CONNO...QQcmdZViewItem




........ Phil

[[email protected]]

Thank you, I now know it is possible. Others have told me it's not
possible. I have not found one myself that has the extra 2". What kind
do you have?

Phil Allison wrote:


Are there any turntables that could possibly play a 16" disc that are
not rare and/or expensive?


** Look out for something like this one:

http://cgi.ebay.com.au/VINTAGE-CONNO...QQcmdZViewItem




....... Phil

[Phil Allison]

Thank you, I now know it is possible. Others have told me it's not
possible.


** Personages with very little imagination.


I have not found one myself that has the extra 2.


** Most turntables will allow the playing of a 15 inch disc.

So you only need to find one with an extra 1/2 inch of clearance.


What kind do you have?


** Its JH inch motor & table with a Formula 4 arm all mounted on 1 inch
thick Perspex and sitting on 3 beehive springs.

Looks roughly the same as the one in the ebay link.

http://cgi.ebay.com.au/VINTAGE-CONNO...QQcmdZViewItem...... Phil

[[email protected]]

So you don't know for a fact that it is possible, it sounds like you're
only speculating like myself.

Phil Allison wrote:


Thank you, I now know it is possible. Others have told me it's not
possible.


** Personages with very little imagination.


I have not found one myself that has the extra 2.


** Most turntables will allow the playing of a 15 inch disc.

So you only need to find one with an extra 1/2 inch of clearance.


What kind do you have?


** Its JH inch motor & table with a Formula 4 arm all mounted on 1 inch
thick Perspex and sitting on 3 beehive springs.

Looks roughly the same as the one in the ebay link.

http://cgi.ebay.com.au/VINTAGE-CONNO...QQcmdZViewItem...... Phil

[Eeyore]

wrote:

So you don't know for a fact that it is possible, it sounds like you're
only speculating like myself.

Well.............

My own rig - Garrard 401 + Ortofon RMG 309 would play a 16" disc.

But that is both rare and probably counts as expensive.

Graham

[Phil Allison]

** GROPER TROLL ALERT !!!


So you don't know for a fact that it is possible, it sounds like you're
only speculating like myself.


** Huh ????

What top posted crapology is this ????

My turntable *will* allow a 16 inch LP to sit on the platter.

The arm *will* allow the PU to play it.

There are similar turntable set ups around.

What the **** else did you want to know ??



......... Phil





Thank you, I now know it is possible. Others have told me it's not
possible.


** Personages with very little imagination.


I have not found one myself that has the extra 2.


** Most turntables will allow the playing of a 15 inch disc.

So you only need to find one with an extra 1/2 inch of clearance.


What kind do you have?


** Its JH inch motor & table with a Formula 4 arm all mounted on 1 inch
thick Perspex and sitting on 3 beehive springs.

Looks roughly the same as the one in the ebay link.


http://cgi.ebay.com.au/VINTAGE-CONNO...QQcmdZViewItem

[isw]

In article .com,
wrote:

Are there any turntables that could possibly play a 16" disc that are
not rare and/or expensive? Even if they coulnd't play at the right
speed or sound great or even reach the entire length of the disc, I
would still be happy. All I've been able to find are $1500 antiques,
something I will never have.

Even if you find a 'table, you may still have some difficulties. If the
disk(s) were intended for radio play, they may be vertical recordings
(needle goes up and down instead of back and forth), and may play
"inside out", which was actually a smart way to do things, since the
best frequency response and dynamic range were available at the end of
the piece, instead of the beginning.

Isaac

[Karl Uppiano]

wrote in message
oups.com...
Are there any turntables that could possibly play a 16" disc that are
not rare and/or expensive? Even if they coulnd't play at the right
speed or sound great or even reach the entire length of the disc, I
would still be happy. All I've been able to find are $1500 antiques,
something I will never have.

These are about $300.00: http://www.esotericsound.com/turntable.htm

[Karl Uppiano]

wrote in message
oups.com...
Are there any turntables that could possibly play a 16" disc that are
not rare and/or expensive? Even if they coulnd't play at the right
speed or sound great or even reach the entire length of the disc, I
would still be happy. All I've been able to find are $1500 antiques,
something I will never have.

I had no idea Rek-o-Kut was still in business, and making some serious
equipment: http://www.esotericsound.com/turntable1.htm
I remember them from my radio days in the late 1970s. The ones we had were
30 years old then. I eventually replaced them with some industrial-grade
Technics. I think the old Rek-o-Kuts went to the landfill.

[Karl Uppiano]

"Karl Uppiano" wrote in message
news:bRhxg.2826$fL3.1480@trnddc07...

wrote in message
oups.com...
Are there any turntables that could possibly play a 16" disc that are
not rare and/or expensive? Even if they coulnd't play at the right
speed or sound great or even reach the entire length of the disc, I
would still be happy. All I've been able to find are $1500 antiques,
something I will never have.

These are about $300.00: http://www.esotericsound.com/turntable.htm

Correction: The one that plays 16" records costs about $700.00. Sorry.

[Phil Allison]

"isw"


Even if you find a 'table, you may still have some difficulties. If the
disk(s) were intended for radio play, they may be vertical recordings
(needle goes up and down instead of back and forth),


** Err - so modern stereo PUs cannot move vertically?

Surely you jest.



And may play "inside out",


** The PU will not care about that either.


which was actually a smart way to do things, since the
best frequency response and dynamic range were available at the end of
the piece, instead of the beginning.


** ********.



.......... Phil

[Laurence Payne]

These are about $300.00: http://www.esotericsound.com/turntable.htm


I see the second model offers a switch to select vertically cut disks.
But a cartridge is not included. Same cartridge for lateral and
vertical cuts? What would the switch do?

[Laurence Payne]

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 16:10:06 +1000, "Phil Allison"
wrote:

which was actually a smart way to do things, since the
best frequency response and dynamic range were available at the end of
the piece, instead of the beginning.


** ********.

Are you disputing that the higher linear speed makes a difference? Or
that it matters which end of the program gets the benefit?

[Richard Crowley]

"Laurence Payne" wrote ...
I see the second model offers a switch to select vertically cut disks.
But a cartridge is not included. Same cartridge for lateral and
vertical cuts? What would the switch do?

A contemporary stereo cartridge can be wired to
respond to horizontal or vertical by jumpering the
L and R sides either in-polarity or opposite-polarity.

[isw]

In article ,
"Phil Allison" wrote:

"isw"


Even if you find a 'table, you may still have some difficulties. If the
disk(s) were intended for radio play, they may be vertical recordings
(needle goes up and down instead of back and forth),


** Err - so modern stereo PUs cannot move vertically?

Surely you jest.

Not at all. A "modern" pickup stylus is not the right size to get the
best results from older "non-microgroove" recordings. And, a modern
"stereo" cartridge will pick up lateral rumble and other noises just
fine, although they contribute nothing good to the playback.

And may play "inside out",


** The PU will not care about that either.

If you don't know it, you won't be able to play the disk, though. And
playing them on a changer will be difficult at best.

which was actually a smart way to do things, since the
best frequency response and dynamic range were available at the end of
the piece, instead of the beginning.


** ********.

Sounds like you're not familiar with "radial equalization" as used in
disk cutting? The whole purpose of it is to (attempt to) compensate for
exactly that problem. One revolution of the disk takes the same amount
of time, no matter the groove diameter. The outside grooves are around
three times as long as the inside ones (more on a sixteen inch disk), so
the waveform is stretched out by that factor -- the "wiggles" have more
room to wiggle, so high frequency response is much better, any loud
passages don't overcut anywhere near as bad. Since for much music, the
loudest (and most complex) part occurs near the end, having more groove
length to use per unit time makes for better quality. It's well known in
the recording industry.

Isaac

[Phil Allison]

"is" = Ignorant Stupid ******



Even if you find a 'table, you may still have some difficulties. If the
disk(s) were intended for radio play, they may be vertical recordings
(needle goes up and down instead of back and forth),


** Err - so modern stereo PUs cannot move vertically?

Surely you jest.

Not at all.


** Ok - so now I KNOW you are a complete ****wit.



A "modern" pickup stylus is not the right size to get the
best results from older "non-microgroove" recordings.


** The correct size stylus are available.

A separate issue from the OP's query.



And, a modern
"stereo" cartridge will pick up lateral rumble and other noises just
fine, although they contribute nothing good to the playback.


** When the L and R channels are wired *out of phase* for vertical
operation, all lateral ( ie mono) output is cancelled.

Basic Audio 101 - you dickhead.



And may play "inside out",


** The PU will not care about that either.

If you don't know it, you won't be able to play the disk, though. And
playing them on a changer will be difficult at best.


** What insane drivel.


which was actually a smart way to do things, since the
best frequency response and dynamic range were available at the end of
the piece, instead of the beginning.


** ********.


Sounds like you're not familiar with "radial equalization" as used in
disk cutting?


** ******** to all of your insane crapology.

Go drop dead.



........ Phil

[Laurence Payne]

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 00:17:05 -0700, isw wrote:

Not at all. A "modern" pickup stylus is not the right size to get the
best results from older "non-microgroove" recordings. And, a modern
"stereo" cartridge will pick up lateral rumble and other noises just
fine, although they contribute nothing good to the playback.

Why all those quote marks? They're all standard words, used in
standard context with standard meaning?

Just asking :-)

[isw]

In article ,
"Phil Allison" wrote:

--snip--

Sounds like you're not familiar with "radial equalization" as used in
disk cutting?


** ******** to all of your insane crapology.

Just in case you'd be interested to increase your level of knowledge so
that you actually know what you're talking about, I would recommend a
fine book, "Sound Recording" by John Eargle. My copy is second edition,
1980. It'll tell you as much as you could possibly want to know about
the process of cutting vinyl disks -- including radial equalization.

Oh, and WRT to old 16-inch disks, whether horizontal or vertical cut,
they likely predate the use of RIAA equalization, so played back on a
contemporary rig, they might sound a bit odd. It could take a bit of
research to find out what EQ was used on any particular disk, as it
varied from one manufacturer to another.

Isaac

[isw]

In article ,
"Phil Allison" wrote:



Are there any turntables that could possibly play a 16" disc that are
not rare and/or expensive?


** Of course it is possible - I could easily play one on my turntable.


Even if they coulnd't play at the right
speed or sound great or even reach the entire length of the disc, I
would still be happy.


** Most 16 inch discs are 33.3 rpm

Actually, 16" disks were in use long before 33 1/3 RPM was a common
speed. Their main feature was that, at 78 RPM, an entire fifteen-minute
radio show could be placed on one disk. That's the way radio shows were
distributed for many years.

Isaac

[[email protected]]

Thanks to those who helped answer my question, it really did help.
Someday I'll find one or afford the new turntable that I want.
It's funny to see how angry some people can get on newsgroups, great
entertainment, for a minute or 2 anyway.

[isw]

In article ,
Laurence Payne lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote:

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 00:17:05 -0700, isw wrote:

Not at all. A "modern" pickup stylus is not the right size to get the
best results from older "non-microgroove" recordings. And, a modern
"stereo" cartridge will pick up lateral rumble and other noises just
fine, although they contribute nothing good to the playback.

Why all those quote marks? They're all standard words, used in
standard context with standard meaning?

Just asking :-)

It's a habit. It's a way of alerting folks for whom those words are
"standard" but their meanings may not be. It comes from years of having
to do write-ups on very technical subjects that will be read by both
technically savvy folks and some who are close to technically
illiterate. It would be nice if there existed a "clearing house" for
words that would prevent their use in more than one technical context,
but alas...

Isaac

[Mr.T]

"isw" wrote in message
...
Oh, and WRT to old 16-inch disks, whether horizontal or vertical cut,
they likely predate the use of RIAA equalization, so played back on a
contemporary rig, they might sound a bit odd. It could take a bit of
research to find out what EQ was used on any particular disk, as it
varied from one manufacturer to another.

Or you could simply record it and re-adjust the EQ in your wave editor until
it sounds right to you. That's what the original recording engineer did,
only he didn't have anywhere near the tools now available to the home
recordist these days.

MrT.

[isw]

In article ,
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:

"isw" wrote in message
...
Oh, and WRT to old 16-inch disks, whether horizontal or vertical cut,
they likely predate the use of RIAA equalization, so played back on a
contemporary rig, they might sound a bit odd. It could take a bit of
research to find out what EQ was used on any particular disk, as it
varied from one manufacturer to another.

Or you could simply record it and re-adjust the EQ in your wave editor until
it sounds right to you. That's what the original recording engineer did,
only he didn't have anywhere near the tools now available to the home
recordist these days.

For individual playback, that will certainly work, if all you want is
for it to "sound right". It'll be somewhat more difficult if you want it
to *be right*. But in any case, it's most assuredly *not* the way the
original recording engineer did it. His gear was set up to provide
equalization to a specified curve, and if he was any good, he'd check
regularly -- whenever he changed the cutting stylus, for example -- to
make sure that it stayed that way. As for tools, one of the main ones a
record cutting engineer had was a good microscope -- you can do EQ
directly by measuring the groove.

It's true that, prior to acceptance of the "RIAA curve" as standard,
each manufacturer had its own preferred EQ, but whatever it was, they
stuck to it. The RIAA curve was a compromise that they all agreed to
because the front panels of preamps were just getting too complicated,
and users were getting too confused because every time they wanted to
play a record, they'd have to get a couple of four or five position
switches set up properly.

Isaac

[don ward]

Radio transcription companies solved the need for "radial equalization"
by using the Western Electric Vertical recording system.
The modulation is esentially up and and down in the groove instead of
laterally and it virtually immune to the difference in diameter between
the inside and outside of the recording diameter and offered superior
frequency response.
If you ever have a chance to listen to World Program Verticals of Duke
Ellington they will blow your socks off..

dnw


Sounds like you're not familiar with "radial equalization" as used in
disk cutting? The whole purpose of it is to (attempt to) compensate for
exactly that problem. One revolution of the disk takes the same amount
of time, no matter the groove diameter. The outside grooves are around
three times as long as the inside ones (more on a sixteen inch disk), so
the waveform is stretched out by that factor -- the "wiggles" have more
room to wiggle, so high frequency response is much better, any loud
passages don't overcut anywhere near as bad. Since for much music, the
loudest (and most complex) part occurs near the end, having more groove
length to use per unit time makes for better quality. It's well known in
the recording industry.

Isaac

[don ward]

Humble correction to this premise;
33 1/3 has been a recording standard for over 75 years long before the
lp was ever developed.
Original movie sound was recorded on a 16" disc playing at 33 1/3, not
recorded on the film. I have several of these early sound movie sound
discs in my collection.
Radio stations had programs supplied at 33 1/3 on 16" discs from the
late 20s through the late 40s.
There were many companies producing daily and weekly programs for
distribution across the country. Many of these were 15 minute programs
other producers specialized in music for radio stations, usually 6-8
cuts per side.
Just as early electrical 78s had a basic recording curve so did the
transcriptions. Most did not require any treble roll off they did
require bass boost.
RCA was about the first to introduce a recording curve with treble
roll off with their "Orthocoustic" recording process to reduce surface
noise on play back by reducing the hi end. The Next curve was
developed by National Association of Broadcasters in the 40s, this was
the NAB curve which as it turns out is very close to RIAA curve used
by modern LPs.
16" discs for radio were never recorded at 78rpm.


** Most 16 inch discs are 33.3 rpm

Actually, 16" disks were in use long before 33 1/3 RPM was a common
speed. Their main feature was that, at 78 RPM, an entire fifteen-minute
radio show could be placed on one disk. That's the way radio shows were
distributed for many years.

Isaac

[Mr.T]

"isw" wrote in message
...
For individual playback, that will certainly work, if all you want is
for it to "sound right". It'll be somewhat more difficult if you want it
to *be right*.

What *IS* right in the context of a non test record? Do you use the same
speakers as the recording and mastering engineers?

But in any case, it's most assuredly *not* the way the
original recording engineer did it. His gear was set up to provide
equalization to a specified curve, and if he was any good, he'd check
regularly -- whenever he changed the cutting stylus, for example -- to
make sure that it stayed that way. As for tools, one of the main ones a
record cutting engineer had was a good microscope -- you can do EQ
directly by measuring the groove.

Which all ignores or misses the point I was making. What was on the final
master tape depended on the engineers hearing, speakers, and most
importantly his opinion of what it should sound like. Approximating the EQ
curve is trivial compared to knowing what the original *live* sound was
really like, or even what the recording engineer/producer heard on their
monitoring system at the time.

It's true that, prior to acceptance of the "RIAA curve" as standard,
each manufacturer had its own preferred EQ, but whatever it was, they
stuck to it.

And if you think that somehow guarantees a perfectly flat response compared
to what was originally heard/meant by the producer/engineer/artist, then you
are living in cloud cuckoo land.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"don ward" wrote in message
...
Radio transcription companies solved the need for "radial equalization"
by using the Western Electric Vertical recording system.
The modulation is esentially up and and down in the groove instead of
laterally and it virtually immune to the difference in diameter between
the inside and outside of the recording diameter

Since the change in the linear groove velocity is the same in either case,
can you explain why vertical modulation will be "virtually" immune from the
effects of reduced velocity?

MrT.

[Phil Allison]

"Mr.T"
"don ward"

Radio transcription companies solved the need for "radial equalization"
by using the Western Electric Vertical recording system.
The modulation is esentially up and and down in the groove instead of
laterally and it virtually immune to the difference in diameter between
the inside and outside of the recording diameter

Since the change in the linear groove velocity is the same in either case,
can you explain why vertical modulation will be "virtually" immune from
the
effects of reduced velocity?

MrT.


** Yeah - I wanna know this one too.




........ Phil

[Laurence Payne]

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 20:36:47 -0700, isw wrote:

Not at all. A "modern" pickup stylus is not the right size to get the
best results from older "non-microgroove" recordings. And, a modern
"stereo" cartridge will pick up lateral rumble and other noises just
fine, although they contribute nothing good to the playback.

Why all those quote marks? They're all standard words, used in
standard context with standard meaning?

Just asking :-)

It's a habit. It's a way of alerting folks for whom those words are
"standard" but their meanings may not be. It comes from years of having
to do write-ups on very technical subjects that will be read by both
technically savvy folks and some who are close to technically
illiterate. It would be nice if there existed a "clearing house" for
words that would prevent their use in more than one technical context,
but alas...

So, in this case, where the words have no possible alternative
meaning, why the quotes?

[Laurence Payne]

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 09:04:20 -0700, isw wrote:

It's true that, prior to acceptance of the "RIAA curve" as standard,
each manufacturer had its own preferred EQ, but whatever it was, they
stuck to it. The RIAA curve was a compromise that they all agreed to
because the front panels of preamps were just getting too complicated,
and users were getting too confused because every time they wanted to
play a record, they'd have to get a couple of four or five position
switches set up properly.

How DID the they stick to it?

[Laurence Payne]

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 05:08:03 GMT, don ward
wrote:

Radio transcription companies solved the need for "radial equalization"
by using the Western Electric Vertical recording system.
The modulation is esentially up and and down in the groove instead of
laterally and it virtually immune to the difference in diameter between
the inside and outside of the recording diameter and offered superior
frequency response.
If you ever have a chance to listen to World Program Verticals of Duke
Ellington they will blow your socks off..

The difference between the inside and outside is a difference in
linear speed. You seem to be saying that vertical modulation is
"immune to" this difference? So linear speed doesn't matter? Why
weren't disks cut at 5 rpm then?

You obviously didn't mean this. What DID you mean?

[isw]

In article ,
Laurence Payne lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote:

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 09:04:20 -0700, isw wrote:

It's true that, prior to acceptance of the "RIAA curve" as standard,
each manufacturer had its own preferred EQ, but whatever it was, they
stuck to it. The RIAA curve was a compromise that they all agreed to
because the front panels of preamps were just getting too complicated,
and users were getting too confused because every time they wanted to
play a record, they'd have to get a couple of four or five position
switches set up properly.

How DID the they stick to it?

Even before the RIAA, the various EQ curves weren't arbitrary; each
company had good reasons to justify the EQ they wanted their product to
have, and they had documentation to specify it. So it was merely a
matter of their recording engineers adjusting their gear to achieve it
-- although "just" is way too weak a word here; done properly, vinyl
cutting is a very complex process.

Part of the reason it's so difficult is that the medium (the disk) has
such poor performance at storing audio waveforms. For example, it's not
correct to say that the recording EQ curve is the inverse of the
playback one. It's more accurate to say that the recording curve is
whatever it has to be in order for the resulting disk to exhibit flat
playback response through the specified playback EQ. That way, the
fairly bad response characteristics of the vinyl-plus-cutter can be
partly compensated.

So the short answer is, they measured the performance of their records,
and adjusted the cutting gear until they got what they wanted. The
recommended playback curves were published, usually on the backs of the
record jackets, so listeners could set up their equipment properly.

The RIAA curve was a compromise that all the manufacturers agreed to, to
make it easier for listeners; however, the job of EQ'ing the cutting
gear was just as difficult as ever.

Isaac

[isw]

In article ,
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:

"isw" wrote in message
...
For individual playback, that will certainly work, if all you want is
for it to "sound right". It'll be somewhat more difficult if you want it
to *be right*.

What *IS* right in the context of a non test record? Do you use the same
speakers as the recording and mastering engineers?

Of course not; for one thing, monitor speakers aren't necessarily a good
choice for living rooms. But I guarantee you that my playback EQ was set
up as accurately as I could manage, using a standard test record and
level measuring gear. That's much more precise than using an "inverse
RIAA network" for example.

But in any case, it's most assuredly *not* the way the
original recording engineer did it. His gear was set up to provide
equalization to a specified curve, and if he was any good, he'd check
regularly -- whenever he changed the cutting stylus, for example -- to
make sure that it stayed that way. As for tools, one of the main ones a
record cutting engineer had was a good microscope -- you can do EQ
directly by measuring the groove.

Which all ignores or misses the point I was making. What was on the final
master tape depended on the engineers hearing, speakers, and most
importantly his opinion of what it should sound like. Approximating the EQ
curve is trivial compared to knowing what the original *live* sound was
really like, or even what the recording engineer/producer heard on their
monitoring system at the time.

Any "production" EQ (which would be on the master tape or disk) is not
at issue here -- that's a matter of taste. It's what happens to the
signal between there and the commercial disk thqt I'm talking about. IF
what you want is the best possible recreation of what was on that master
tape (so you hear what the producer heard), then you need to apply the
proper playback EQ to the signal. In theory (but *never* in practice),
if you use the proper playback EQ, the signal out of your phono preamp
will be identical to the signal from a playback of the master tape.
That's the best you can possibly hope for. "Live sound"? Forget about it.

It's true that, prior to acceptance of the "RIAA curve" as standard,
each manufacturer had its own preferred EQ, but whatever it was, they
stuck to it.

And if you think that somehow guarantees a perfectly flat response compared
to what was originally heard/meant by the producer/engineer/artist, then you
are living in cloud cuckoo land.

Of course I don't. Vinyl is a rather poor storage medium for audio
signals -- distortion, noise, nonlinearity; it's all there. Have you
ever tried to check a phono preamp for "RIAA accuracy" using a
professional test record? I have. It's almost impossible.

Isaac

[Mr.T]

"isw" wrote in message
...
for it to "sound right". It'll be somewhat more difficult if you want
it
to *be right*.

What *IS* right in the context of a non test record? Do you use the same
speakers as the recording and mastering engineers?

Of course not; for one thing, monitor speakers aren't necessarily a good
choice for living rooms. But I guarantee you that my playback EQ was set
up as accurately as I could manage, using a standard test record and
level measuring gear. That's much more precise than using an "inverse
RIAA network" for example.

So what your saying is, it doesn't matter whether it sounds right, or
anything like what it was meant to sound like, as long as you use the right
EQ setting.
Your choice, and you're welcome to it. Remember though we were discussing
*non RIAA* recordings.
For RIAA recordings I do agree it is best to start with proper RIAA playback
EQ, but still use tone controls/EQ whenever necessary.

Any "production" EQ (which would be on the master tape or disk) is not
at issue here -- that's a matter of taste.

Exactly, and that *is* an issue.

It's what happens to the
signal between there and the commercial disk thqt I'm talking about.

Why do you think one EQ matters and not another? They all have an effect on
the final sound.

IF
what you want is the best possible recreation of what was on that master
tape (so you hear what the producer heard), then you need to apply the
proper playback EQ to the signal.

What the producer heard live, or on his monitoring system? I can assure you
they are different. I can also assure you that YOU will not hear either case
just by using the nominal playback EQ.

In theory (but *never* in practice),

That's my point.

if you use the proper playback EQ, the signal out of your phono preamp
will be identical to the signal from a playback of the master tape.

Fairly close, if youre very lucky maybe. CD does give you a much better
chance at least.

And if you think that somehow guarantees a perfectly flat response
compared
to what was originally heard/meant by the producer/engineer/artist, then
you
are living in cloud cuckoo land.

Of course I don't. Vinyl is a rather poor storage medium for audio
signals -- distortion, noise, nonlinearity; it's all there.

At last we agree on something. That's why slavishly sticking to a defined EQ
curve when the playback or even recording obviously sounds crook, is a
stupid idea.
You're welcome to do whatever you want though.

Have you
ever tried to check a phono preamp for "RIAA accuracy" using a
professional test record? I have. It's almost impossible.

Why on earth would you check a phono pre-amp with a test record? I check
those with a spectrum analyser. Test records are for checking
turntables/cartridges.
You obviously need to learn good measurement practice.

In fact what you are really doing is to adjust the Pre-amp EQ to compensate
for your cartridge response, so it matches the test record. Now *That's*
very close to what I'm suggesting all along, and what YOU are disagreeing
with!!

MrT.

[isw]

In article ,
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:

"isw" wrote in message
...
for it to "sound right". It'll be somewhat more difficult if you want
it
to *be right*.

What *IS* right in the context of a non test record? Do you use the same
speakers as the recording and mastering engineers?

Of course not; for one thing, monitor speakers aren't necessarily a good
choice for living rooms. But I guarantee you that my playback EQ was set
up as accurately as I could manage, using a standard test record and
level measuring gear. That's much more precise than using an "inverse
RIAA network" for example.

So what your saying is, it doesn't matter whether it sounds right, or
anything like what it was meant to sound like, as long as you use the right
EQ setting.

What I'm saying is what I already said: if you don't use the proper
playback EQ, you don't stand much chance of hearing what the producer
intended you to hear -- you're just guessing.

Your choice, and you're welcome to it. Remember though we were discussing
*non RIAA* recordings.
For RIAA recordings I do agree it is best to start with proper RIAA playback
EQ, but still use tone controls/EQ whenever necessary.

You use proper RIAA EQ to "cancel" the effects of the vinyl, to the
greatest extent possible. Afterthat, you can tweak the sound to your
taste, if you want to.

Any "production" EQ (which would be on the master tape or disk) is not
at issue here -- that's a matter of taste.

Exactly, and that *is* an issue.

It's what happens to the
signal between there and the commercial disk thqt I'm talking about.

Why do you think one EQ matters and not another? They all have an effect on
the final sound.

Production EQ is part of the process of *creating music*, if you will.
Cutting EQ is just attempting to correct for a poor transfer medium --
the vinyl record. Both have an effect on the sound, but their intentions
are very different. Assuming you want to hear it as the producer
intended, you have to deal properly with the cutting EQ. You have no
clue what the production EQ was.

IF
what you want is the best possible recreation of what was on that master
tape (so you hear what the producer heard), then you need to apply the
proper playback EQ to the signal.

What the producer heard live, or on his monitoring system? I can assure you
they are different. I can also assure you that YOU will not hear either case
just by using the nominal playback EQ.

On his monitors, of course. There's no possibility of reaching back
before that. But to even get close, you have to deal properly with the
cutting EQ, which is -- sort of -- the "inverse" of the playback EQ.

if you use the proper playback EQ, the signal out of your phono preamp
will be identical to the signal from a playback of the master tape.

Fairly close, if youre very lucky maybe.

Yup. as I said, vinyl is a pretty crappy medium for storing audio
signals.

CD does give you a much better
chance at least.

Within the frequency range it's capable of handling, a CD can provide
very nearly perfectly flat response, with negligible distortion and
added noise. No commercial analog method can even get close to its
performance.

And if you think that somehow guarantees a perfectly flat response
compared
to what was originally heard/meant by the producer/engineer/artist, then
you
are living in cloud cuckoo land.

Of course I don't. Vinyl is a rather poor storage medium for audio
signals -- distortion, noise, nonlinearity; it's all there.

At last we agree on something. That's why slavishly sticking to a defined EQ
curve when the playback or even recording obviously sounds crook, is a
stupid idea.
You're welcome to do whatever you want though.

Again: The best you can possibly hope for, is to hear something close to
what the producer heard *from his monitors*. The best chance you have
for doing that is to "cancel out" as much of the vinyl-caused damage as
possible. To accomplish that, you have to have the proper playback EQ.

Have you
ever tried to check a phono preamp for "RIAA accuracy" using a
professional test record? I have. It's almost impossible.

Why on earth would you check a phono pre-amp with a test record? I check
those with a spectrum analyser. Test records are for checking
turntables/cartridges.

If your playback EQ does not include cartridge/groove mechanical
effects, and specific cartridge response (and effects), then you're
probably not very close. Using a test record for a signal source and
including the entire cartridge in the signal path is the *only way* you
can possibly do that.

You obviously need to learn good measurement practice.

Well, if nearly forty years as a designer/manager in broadcasting and
related industries hasn't done it, I'm afraid it's never going to happen.

In fact what you are really doing is to adjust the Pre-amp EQ to compensate
for your cartridge response, so it matches the test record. Now *That's*
very close to what I'm suggesting all along, and what YOU are disagreeing
with!!

I think there was some miscommunication, then, because THAT IS EXACTLY
WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

It seems that we have been vehemently agreeing with each other.

Isaac

[Mr.T]

"isw" wrote in message
...
What I'm saying is what I already said: if you don't use the proper
playback EQ, you don't stand much chance of hearing what the producer
intended you to hear -- you're just guessing.

Or even if you do, considering all the other factors you prefer to ignore.

You use proper RIAA EQ to "cancel" the effects of the vinyl, to the
greatest extent possible. Afterthat, you can tweak the sound to your
taste, if you want to.

We weren't talking RIAA originally, so why change the subject anyway.

Production EQ is part of the process of *creating music*, if you will.
Cutting EQ is just attempting to correct for a poor transfer medium --
the vinyl record. Both have an effect on the sound, but their intentions
are very different. Assuming you want to hear it as the producer
intended, you have to deal properly with the cutting EQ. You have no
clue what the production EQ was.

Or what the monitor speakers and studio acoustics were like.

IF
what you want is the best possible recreation of what was on that
master
tape (so you hear what the producer heard), then you need to apply the
proper playback EQ to the signal.

What the producer heard live, or on his monitoring system? I can assure
you
they are different. I can also assure you that YOU will not hear either
case
just by using the nominal playback EQ.

On his monitors, of course. There's no possibility of reaching back
before that. But to even get close, you have to deal properly with the
cutting EQ, which is -- sort of -- the "inverse" of the playback EQ.

What a fallacy. It's a very good starting point, *when you know what it is*,
that's all.

Within the frequency range it's capable of handling, a CD can provide
very nearly perfectly flat response, with negligible distortion and
added noise. No commercial analog method can even get close to its
performance.

Seems we agree on something then. You *still* have to guess what the
producer heard though.

Again: The best you can possibly hope for, is to hear something close to
what the producer heard *from his monitors*. The best chance you have
for doing that is to "cancel out" as much of the vinyl-caused damage as
possible. To accomplish that, you have to have the proper playback EQ.

This is where we still disagree. The sound you will hear is not remotely
close to what the producer heard, just because you use RIAA or any other
standard EQ.

Have you
ever tried to check a phono preamp for "RIAA accuracy" using a
professional test record? I have. It's almost impossible.

Why on earth would you check a phono pre-amp with a test record? I check
those with a spectrum analyser. Test records are for checking
turntables/cartridges.

If your playback EQ does not include cartridge/groove mechanical
effects, and specific cartridge response (and effects), then you're
probably not very close. Using a test record for a signal source and
including the entire cartridge in the signal path is the *only way* you
can possibly do that.

You should read what I wrote, but at least you are now admitting you are NOT
checking the phono *pre-amp* then, and were thus incorrect in saying so.

You obviously need to learn good measurement practice.

Well, if nearly forty years as a designer/manager in broadcasting and
related industries hasn't done it, I'm afraid it's never going to happen.

Yes some people never learn.

In fact what you are really doing is to adjust the Pre-amp EQ to
compensate
for your cartridge response, so it matches the test record. Now *That's*
very close to what I'm suggesting all along, and what YOU are
disagreeing
with!!

I think there was some miscommunication, then, because THAT IS EXACTLY
WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

It seems that we have been vehemently agreeing with each other.

It seems you fail to read what is written, and mean things you do not write
correctly then.

MrT.

[isw]

In article ,
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:

"isw" wrote in message
...


--snipped off a lot of this because I'm tired of talking at cross
purposes about it --

If your playback EQ does not include cartridge/groove mechanical
effects, and specific cartridge response (and effects), then you're
probably not very close. Using a test record for a signal source and
including the entire cartridge in the signal path is the *only way* you
can possibly do that.

You should read what I wrote, but at least you are now admitting you are NOT
checking the phono *pre-amp* then, and were thus incorrect in saying so.

No such thing. I'm saying to use the test record as a source instead of
a signal generator and "inverse RIAA network", and adjust the response
of the phono preamp as needed for "flat" output. That gives you as close
as you're going to get to what was on the master tape. One of the things
you learn when you try that is that it's just about impossible.

-- snipped a couple more ad hominem attacks --

Isaac