Best way/quality to record vinyl...
rhub...@yahoo.com
I am a vinyl collector, and I have noticed the superior
quality of analogue records in terms of sound richness and
bass power, wrt digital.
I record my records to audio cassettes as follow:
- I prefer Chromium Oxide tapes (CrO2) for mono records: deep 50s or
60s grooves, especally for 45s, as well as early
stereo LP and 45s from late 60s, into mid-70s.
- I prefer Metal Position tapes (TYPE IV) to preserve the power of 80s
records as much as possible. So from late 70s (Disco era), through
80s, and especially 90s and 2000s music on vinyl, I find metal tapes
keep as much richness as possible.
The problem is I find hard (or almost impossible) to find
Metal tapes, or even Chromium tapes, these days, and
finding a new high-end tape deck seems more of a challenge.
If you feel vinyl is superior than digital, and you'd like to record
your records onto another analogue media, what do you do. Can we use
something else than audiotapes, and if so how is the quality wrt
audiotapes.
Thanks for sharing any experience.
jwvm
You are really going down a path that few are traveling. Cassette
tapes are disappearing because of the perception that digital
recordings are considerably better than cassette recordings.
Measurements can easily show that to be the case but they are not
necessarily convincing. However, have you tried to make digital
recordings (using reasonably modern hardware) of your LPs and if so
have you been able to differentiate reliably between the LP and the
digital recording of it in some fashion to minimize sighted bias?
The sad truth regarding your situation is that analog recording media
are rapidly disappearing and there is little reason to assume that
high-quality analog media will be available in the future. Even
recording studios are currently having a hard time getting good media
for their 24-track analog tape systems because of the move to digital
by a preponderance of the other studios and tape manufacturers are
discontinuing production. Most new recordings will be recorded
digitally or will have at least had some digitital processing and
can't be considered purely analog recordings. You might find that
digital recordings of your LPs won't sound all that bad! :-)
John Stone
"rhub...@yahoo.com" <rhub...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I've recorded a number of LP's onto my computer using a fairly inexpensive
sound card and Audacity, a free download. I burned these onto CD's and then
compared them with the LP playing directly through the system using the same
turntable and preamp that I used for the digital recording. Honestly, it's
extremely difficult to hear any difference at all between the two. All the
vinyl "richness" and other "superior qualities" are still there. As is the
surface noise and the subsonic woofer pumping.
Arny Krueger
news:gdb35...@news3.newsguy.com
> Hello,
> I am a vinyl collector, and I have noticed the superior
> quality of analogue records in terms of sound richness and
> bass power, wrt digital.
>
> I record my records to audio cassettes as follow:
> - I prefer Chromium Oxide tapes (CrO2) for mono records:
> deep 50s or 60s grooves, especally for 45s, as well as
> early stereo LP and 45s from late 60s, into mid-70s.
I've got a lot of experience with recording fresh material onto cassettes.
I'm talking 100's of recordings over a goodly number of years. When I go
back and audition them, they are an embarassment compared to what I do today
with the same sources recorded digitally.
The cassette format is incapable of what I consider to be high fidelity. If
the noise and lack of dynamic range doesn't drive you away, the modulation
noise should.
As little as I like the obvious audible limitations of the LP format, I
consider putting LPs onto cassettes to be a great loss of potential sound
quality. OTOH, putting LPs onto CDs is simply good stewardship of legacy
musical performances.
William Noble
CD - Personally, I had the best results going to a reel to reel deck at 7.5
IPS, even the best cassettes on a superior machine were inferior to that.
but with that said, I think the suggestion of CDs is good - I haven't looked
at equipment recently, but I did go through quite an exercise with fancy
sound cards and whatnot before deciding that the only way that made sense
was to buy a commercial grade recorder (TASCAM) and put it into my main
stereo. I found inferior sound and ground loop/noise problems when I used a
computer directly, and all these problems went away when I went to a
commercial machine. I looked at the "home" machines too - they had lots of
ease of use features, but they required special media that had a "music" tax
on it and I found that offensive. Not that I object to paying for music,
but if I am recording a Dorthy Shay 78 or an LP of Elizabeth Swartzkof, or
Ultimate Spinach (or you name it), I don't want to be paying the latest pop
stars for the privelege. When I record my own records, I've already paid
the royalty anyway.
Steven Sullivan
> Hello,
> I am a vinyl collector, and I have noticed the superior
> quality of analogue records in terms of sound richness and
> bass power, wrt digital.
You haven't noticed 'the' superior quality, you've noticed a
quality that you consider to sound superior. This could be the
different mastering used for LPs compared to CDs, or it could be
inherent sound qualities added by the vinyl medium and playback
devices, or it could be both. It is really quite *un*likely to
be any inherent deficit of digital or technical superiority of
LP.
> If you feel vinyl is superior than digital, and you'd like to record
> your records onto another analogue media, what do you do. Can we use
> something else than audiotapes, and if so how is the quality wrt
> audiotapes.
Recording to digital will certainly be superior in quality to
audiotapes, in terms of amount of added distortion.
Quite likely if you were to compare them blind, you'd find it
impossible to tell the LP from the CDR recording you made of the
LP. That's rather less likely for a cassette tape recording of an
LP.
--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)
Mike Gilmour
news:gdd4k...@news4.newsguy.com...
> others have remarked on various techniques and the advantages of going to
> CD - Personally, I had the best results going to a reel to reel deck at
> 7.5
> IPS, even the best cassettes on a superior machine were inferior to that.
I beg to differ, comparing my Studer Revox B77 MkII to my Nakamichi CR-7E,
not only has the Nak better specifications, to my ears it sounds better.
It's really incredible what Nakamichi could wring out of a tape speed of
1-7/8 ips compared to the Revox at 7.5 ips.
Robert Peirce
I used to record to cassette using good tape and top of the line
recorders. Digital is a much better way to preserve your vinyl. I have
been using a Korg MR-1 to transfer vinyl to digital. I transfer that to
my computer and burn a CD. I can't tell the CD from the vinyl, but I
can play it in my car!
--
Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac]
rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office]
Sonnova
(in article <6lumgpF...@mid.individual.net>):
> rhub...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Hello,
>> I am a vinyl collector, and I have noticed the superior
>> quality of analogue records in terms of sound richness and
>> bass power, wrt digital.
>
> You haven't noticed 'the' superior quality, you've noticed a
> quality that you consider to sound superior. This could be the
> different mastering used for LPs compared to CDs, or it could be
> inherent sound qualities added by the vinyl medium and playback
> devices, or it could be both. It is really quite *un*likely to
> be any inherent deficit of digital or technical superiority of
> LP.
If this guy IS laboring under a misapprehension, then he has plenty of
company. Lots of people agree with him. As I've said before, I have a number
of LPs which are far better sounding than the CDs eventually released of the
same performances.
>
>> If you feel vinyl is superior than digital, and you'd like to record
>> your records onto another analogue media, what do you do. Can we use
>> something else than audiotapes, and if so how is the quality wrt
>> audiotapes.
>
> Recording to digital will certainly be superior in quality to
> audiotapes, in terms of amount of added distortion.
>
> Quite likely if you were to compare them blind, you'd find it
> impossible to tell the LP from the CDR recording you made of the
> LP. That's rather less likely for a cassette tape recording of an
> LP.
That's true - unless the equipment used to dub the LP to CD is inferior to
the equipment used to listen to the LP, then the LP would still sound better
than the CD dub of it.
Sonnova
(in article <6lumk1F...@mid.individual.net>):
Well, I can't comment directly, not ever having owned a Nakamichi CR-7E. I
can say this, though; Revox A77s didn't sound very good. They were very early
transistor designs and as such were extremely colored. They supposedly fixed
the problem with the B77 which came out, IIRC, in the early 1980's. A buddy
of mine had one and we recorded live with it (using a pair of Sony C-37P
mics) many times. I still have those masters and they sound fine. In fact ,I
can't tell without looking whether a particular recording was made with the
B77 or with my own Sony 880-2 (unless the Sony was using a 10.5 " reel of
Sony FeCr tape at 15 ips, then I can tell the difference as I only ever had
five reels of that stuff).
But I cannot see how a cassette deck, even the best Nakamichi, can compare to
a R-R deck, even when the latter is only running at 7.5 ips. The cassette
tape tracks are so narrow, and the tape is moving so slowly, that even with
Dolby B, the s/n of a cassette is barely acceptable. Also cassettes self
-erase high frequencies (7KHz +) very severely at recording levels above -20
dBM. Dolby invented a dynamic biasing circuit called HX-Pro to mitigate this
problem, and while HX-pro does increase the high-frequency headroom of
cassette, it's still no match for R-R at 7.5 ips, even if the latter is
quarter track.
Ger
> On 10/17/08 5:21 PM, in article gdb35t0...@news3.newsguy.com,
That is DEFINITLY my experience, also.
And the CD burned 'Direct-From-LP' is not
only WAY better listening than the same disc in its available
commercial form.
It is also VERY close to listening to the vinyl plate itself.
Question:
I wonder how far we move 'down' or 'up' the scale of competing retail
charges for the analogue set-up (TT/cart/phonostage plus recorder set-
ups and corresponding and, will
reproduce the same overwhelmingly clear and evident result?
This is not an iff-y or 'subjective' account of musical pleasue. There
is distinctly more space and air and drive and presentation, damn near
everything, in the "Vinyl-Direct-To-CD."
I've never played the different versions for ANYONE who fails to note
a huge difference and improvement!
Comments?
C. Leeds
> I've recorded a number of LP's onto my computer using a fairly inexpensive
> sound card and Audacity... All the
> vinyl "richness" and other "superior qualities" are still there. As is the
> surface noise and the subsonic woofer pumping.
That's not so much the vinyl talking as it is your
turntable/tonearm/cartridge. When recorded to CD from a good turntable
rig, it's actually amazing how CD-like LPs actually sound.
just me
I've tossed a couple of vinyl to cd via a cd recorder because the commercial
cd was available; huge mistake as my xfer sounded better than the "newly
mastered" cd. The thing is that the recording "engineers"/producers
believe in messing with the original for their "musical" ideas/sound choices.
The surround sound is just as gimmicky in that whoever has the power to
dictate how the sound is produced; I don't believe that many people want to
be "in the middle of that action/orchestra/band".
Arny Krueger
news:6lumk1F...@mid.individual.net
I compared a number of Nakamichi cassette machines to my hand-tweaked A77
with high performance tape back in the days when this was about as good as
it was. IME there is no way to overcome the basic limitations of the
cassette medium as compared to 2-4 times the track width and 4 times the
speed. The Naks may have been euphonic, but the basic problems of not enough
track width and too slow of a speed can't be overcome.
Today this is all moot, because the better on-board audio interfaces in
modern PCs blow all forms of analog tape away, even 15 ips half-track.
Mike Gilmour
news:gddhb...@news7.newsguy.com...
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 11:01:37 -0700, Mike Gilmour wrote
> (in article <6lumk1F...@mid.individual.net>):
>
>
I agree that the A77's were poor. I've many times used my B77 MkII at 7.5ips
for live recording along with the Nakamichi CR-7E as safety for broadcasting
using Neumann Mics & Millennia Media HV-3B mic pre. Listening back I
consistently preferred the CR-7E overall and I'm not the only one who thinks
this:
http://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk/hfw/oldeworldehtml/nakamichicr7e.html
Nowadays I record digitally but looking back there was something really
special about that deck. Just imagine what Nakamichi could have achieved if
they designed a RTR to compete with the rather bulky & heavy Revox.
Arny Krueger
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 10:59:53 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
> (in article <6lumgpF...@mid.individual.net>):
>
>> rhub...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>> I am a vinyl collector, and I have noticed the superior
>>> quality of analogue records in terms of sound richness
>>> and bass power, wrt digital.
>
>> You haven't noticed 'the' superior quality, you've
>> noticed a quality that you consider to sound superior.
I think this is only a partial explanation. When both are exploited there is
no question that the CD format can take bass to places where the LP could
never go. However, in the hands of humans, that can be either the good news
or the bad news.
>> This could be the different mastering used for LPs
>> compared to CDs, or it could be inherent sound qualities
>> added by the vinyl medium and playback devices, or it
>> could be both. It is really quite *un*likely to be any
>> inherent deficit of digital or technical superiority of
>> LP.
> If this guy IS laboring under a misapprehension, then he
> has plenty of company. Lots of people agree with him. As
> I've said before, I have a number of LPs which are far
> better sounding than the CDs eventually released of the
> same performances.
I agree with the facts presented, but they are not necessarily
representative of the respective forms of media.
It's no secret that even highly-paid and well-known professional engineers
and producers can make mistakes and/or expedient choices. Now adays,
classical CDs are remastered by young engineers who wish they were working
with Britney. In the old days cutting masters were used to master CDs
because better masters couldn't be found at all, and there was a big rush
to market. In-between, there were bad days and good days. The human factor
can't be ignored when you don't have all the relevant facts at hand.
John Stone
<clee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Well, you totally missed my point, which was that recording vinyl onto a CD
could capture pretty much everything that was coming from the phono preamp.
As to your comment, it's hard for me to see how you can conclude from what I
wrote that I've got a lousy turntable/tonearm/cartridge. Surface noise,
ticks and pops, and subsonic output on record warps are a reality with vinyl
playback. Certainly, some poorly matched arms and cartridges, and turntables
with poor feedback isolation can make these problems even worse. I've also
experienced considerable differences between cartridges on audibility of
surface noise. My own vinyl setup, while admittedly not "the ultimate", is
certainly more than respectable; as is my separate phono preamp. As for Lp's
sounding CD-like, my experience is that some do, but many don't.
Sonnova
(in article <gdfg0...@news6.newsguy.com>):
> "Mike Gilmour" <gilmo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:6lumk1F...@mid.individual.net
>
>> "William Noble" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:gdd4k...@news4.newsguy.com...
>>> others have remarked on various techniques and the
>>> advantages of going to CD - Personally, I had the best
>>> results going to a reel to reel deck at 7.5
>>> IPS, even the best cassettes on a superior machine were
>>> inferior to that.
>
>> I beg to differ, comparing my Studer Revox B77 MkII to my
>> Nakamichi CR-7E, not only has the Nak better
>> specifications, to my ears it sounds better. It's really
>> incredible what Nakamichi could wring out of a tape speed
>> of 1-7/8 ips compared to the Revox at 7.5 ips.
>
> I compared a number of Nakamichi cassette machines to my hand-tweaked A77
> with high performance tape back in the days when this was about as good as
> it was. IME there is no way to overcome the basic limitations of the
> cassette medium as compared to 2-4 times the track width and 4 times the
> speed. The Naks may have been euphonic, but the basic problems of not enough
> track width and too slow of a speed can't be overcome.
I agree. There is no way that cassette can be as good as R-R.
C. Leeds
>>> I've recorded a number of LP's onto my computer using a fairly inexpensive
>>> sound card and Audacity... All the
>>> vinyl "richness" and other "superior qualities" are still there. As is the
>>> surface noise and the subsonic woofer pumping.
I answered:
>> That's not so much the vinyl talking as it is your
>> turntable/tonearm/cartridge. When recorded to CD from a good turntable
>> rig, it's actually amazing how CD-like LPs actually sound.
John Stone answers:
> ...it's hard for me to see how you can conclude from what I
> wrote that I've got a lousy turntable/tonearm/cartridge.
I never said you had a lousy turntable/tonearm/cartridge. I said the
problems you complained about are caused as much by your equipment as by
your LPs.
> Surface noise,
> ticks and pops, and subsonic output on record warps are a reality with vinyl
> playback.
Sure, if you have LPs that have been improperly handled or maintained,
or if you buy your LPs used from dicey sources, or if your turntable
lacks a proper clamping system, then you will have these problems, no
doubt. But these problems are not really an inherent audible problem
with proper LP playback.
> Certainly, some poorly matched arms and cartridges, and turntables
> with poor feedback isolation can make these problems even worse.
Quite so.
> I've also
> experienced considerable differences between cartridges on audibility of
> surface noise.
Me too. Stylus shape has a lot to do with that.
> As for Lp's
> sounding CD-like, my experience is that some do, but many don't.
Agreed. Just as there are well made CDs and poorly made CDs, there are
well made LPs and poorly made LPs.
C. Leeds
> There is no way that cassette can be as good as R-R.
That depends. There were many mediocre reel-to-reel machines made during
the analogue era. The best cassette decks - such as the best Nakamichis
and Tandbergs - will trounce those.
Certainly, reel-to-reel offers better potential performance, no doubt.
Steven Sullivan
Well, the 'original' is the master tape version...you don't tend to hear that on LP
either.
> The surround sound is just as gimmicky in that whoever has the power to
> dictate how the sound is produced; I don't believe that many people want to
> be "in the middle of that action/orchestra/band".
Surround mixes don't necessarily do that...e.g., the surround version of
the famous Kleiber Beethoven 5th doesn't.
Steven Sullivan
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 10:59:53 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
> (in article <6lumgpF...@mid.individual.net>):
> > rhub...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >> I am a vinyl collector, and I have noticed the superior
> >> quality of analogue records in terms of sound richness and
> >> bass power, wrt digital.
> >
> > You haven't noticed 'the' superior quality, you've noticed a
> > quality that you consider to sound superior. This could be the
> > different mastering used for LPs compared to CDs, or it could be
> > inherent sound qualities added by the vinyl medium and playback
> > devices, or it could be both. It is really quite *un*likely to
> > be any inherent deficit of digital or technical superiority of
> > LP.
> If this guy IS laboring under a misapprehension, then he has plenty of
> company. Lots of people agree with him. As I've said before, I have a number
> of LPs which are far better sounding than the CDs eventually released of the
> same performances.
A widespread misapprehension -- that it's something 'wrong' with CD
per se -- is still a misapprehension. It's not unusual for lots of peopel
to employ faulty reasoning. Most people have no clue about what
'mastering' is in the first place, for example, and why it could
account for virtually all of the difference they hear.
> >> If you feel vinyl is superior than digital, and you'd like to record
> >> your records onto another analogue media, what do you do. Can we use
> >> something else than audiotapes, and if so how is the quality wrt
> >> audiotapes.
> >
> > Recording to digital will certainly be superior in quality to
> > audiotapes, in terms of amount of added distortion.
> >
> > Quite likely if you were to compare them blind, you'd find it
> > impossible to tell the LP from the CDR recording you made of the
> > LP. That's rather less likely for a cassette tape recording of an
> > LP.
> That's true - unless the equipment used to dub the LP to CD is inferior to
> the equipment used to listen to the LP, then the LP would still sound better
> than the CD dub of it.
Pathological conditions are alwyas possible, but they don't alter the truth of the principle.
In the old days, one had to monitor levels, for example; one still does.
anthony
> Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote:
> > > Quite likely if you were to compare them blind, you'd find it
> > > impossible to tell the LP from the CDR recording you made of the
> > > LP. That's rather less likely for a cassette tape recording of an
>
I have a Pioneer standalone CD recorder which I bought secondhand on
Ebay for around $250. It is coupled into my hi-fi system so that I
can record direct from my turntable - a Thorens TD 126 MkII, with a
Sumiko Premier tone-arm and Ortofon cartridge (plus a separate
headshell with Shure N44-3 for 78 shellacs). I don't want to be
endlessly lugging my turntable from living-room to computer-room, so
this system suits me just fine.
The Pioneer uses the special 'digital audio for consumer' CD-blanks
which are a bit dearer than standard blanks, and can be difficult
sometimes to find. I have however removed that difficulty by using
'digital audio for consumer CD-RW' discs, which can be reformatted and
used again.
After recording, I simply take the disc and pop it into the computer
using EAC, and then put it through a mild declicking process using
Adobe Audition. Mild only as I don't want to unduly tamper with the
vinyl sound. I then burn onto a standard CD, and reformat my special
RW disc for later use.
The result can be breathtaking. All the great warmth and strength of
the original vinyl, less the sometimes intrusive clicks and surface
noise.
Where I have early 'official' CD transfers of analog material, my own
transfer is almost always better -- clearer and with tangible 3-
dimensional presence. I think standard CD transfers in the early years
were spoiled by transfer engineers who either destroyed ambience by
aiming for ultra-cleanliness -- or, as with early transfers of The
Rolling Stones' 60s material, and early Dylan material, by just not
bothering to source the original master-tapes.
So go digital for your transfers. Your ears will love you!
Sonnova
(in article <6m1k7fF...@mid.individual.net>):
Well, obviously that is what we're talking about, best vs best.
isw
"C. Leeds" <clee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
To the extent that there is any difference at all, it may be due to the
lack of acoustic feedback from the speakers to the disc, in the case of
vinyl.
Isaac
Steven Sullivan
'Ambience' on a pop/rock studio recordings is usually artificial anyway. It's added
by the recording engineer(s)
For live recordings, a 'clean' digital 2-channel recording will capture the original
'ambience' as well as the master tape did (which is to say, only moderately
well, given the limits of 2-channel) -- but transcribing that to LP will
actually ADD some spurious, if pleasing to some, 'ambience' of its own, via euphonic
distortion inherent in vinyl playback.
Arny Krueger
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 13:39:11 -0700, C. Leeds wrote
> (in article <6m1k7fF...@mid.individual.net>):
>
>> Sonnova wrote:
>>> There is no way that cassette can be as good as R-R.
They are both analog tape and so their performance can reasonably expected
to overlap, at least a bit.
>> That depends. There were many mediocre reel-to-reel
>> machines made during the analogue era. The best cassette
>> decks - such as the best Nakamichis and Tandbergs - will
>> trounce those.
Best the mediocre ones, perhaps, I don't know about the trouncing part.
Besides, while top-of-the-line Tandberg or Nak is at least vaguely defined,
what is mediocre?
Are you comparing a Sony 355 with a Nak 700 series? Or are you comparing a
$99 Lafayette open-reel recoder/player to a Nak Dragon?
>> Certainly, reel-to-reel offers better potential
>> performance, no doubt.
> Well, obviously that is what we're talking about, best vs
> best.
The best in analog tape is more like half-track 15 ips on an Ampex ATR 10x.
I don't think that there was a Nak that even came close.
Peter Wieck
> Hello,
> I am a vinyl collector, and I have noticed the superior
> quality of analogue records in terms of sound richness and
> bass power, wrt digital.
>
> - I prefer Chromium Oxide tapes (CrO2) for mono records: deep 50s or
> 60s grooves, especally for 45s, as well as early
> stereo LP and 45s from late 60s, into mid-70s.
>
> - I prefer Metal Position tapes (TYPE IV) to preserve the power of 80s
> records as much as possible. So from late 70s (Disco era), through
> 80s, and especially 90s and 2000s music on vinyl, I find metal tapes
> keep as much richness as possible.
>
> The problem is I find hard (or almost impossible) to find
> Metal tapes, or even Chromium tapes, these days, and
> finding a new high-end tape deck seems more of a challenge.
>
> your records onto another analogue media, what do you do. Can we use
> something else than audiotapes, and if so how is the quality wrt
> audiotapes.
Mpffff....
I keep a Revox A77 in excellent & well-maintained condition.
A revox B710 cassette deck - similar.
A Tascam 3-head cassette deck - similar.
Occasionally, I record vinyl.
Both Revoxs sound better than the Tascam.
*WITH VINYL*, the differences between the cassette and the RtR are a
close-run thing. The Dolby system accounts for most of that closeness.
Without it, the RtR is hands-down superior in every way except expense
and handling and indexing and storage...
Neither is very satisfactory as compared to a recording to digital
media, done properly - even with an inexpensive Philips recording CD
player.
All consumer-recording media have their issues, real or perceived,
with longevity. I expect that modern digital media will very likely
last as long as or longer than any magnetic medium with less
environmental sensitivity.
You pays you money, you takes you chances.
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
Cassettes are easier to store and are *about* as good as the original
vinyl all other things being equal.
S888...@aol.com
> Hello,
> I am a vinyl collector, and I have noticed the superior
> quality of analogue records in terms of sound richness and
> bass power, wrt digital.
>
> I record my records to audio cassettes as follow:
> - I prefer Chromium Oxide tapes (CrO2) for mono records: deep 50s or
> 60s grooves, especally for 45s, as well as early
> stereo LP and 45s from late 60s, into mid-70s.
>
> - I prefer Metal Position tapes (TYPE IV) to preserve the power of 80s
> records as much as possible. So from late 70s (Disco era), through
> 80s, and especially 90s and 2000s music on vinyl, I find metal tapes
> keep as much richness as possible.
>
> The problem is I find hard (or almost impossible) to find
> Metal tapes, or even Chromium tapes, these days, and
> finding a new high-end tape deck seems more of a challenge.
>
> If you feel vinyl is superior than digital, and you'd like to record
> your records onto another analogue media, what do you do. Can we use
> something else than audiotapes, and if so how is the quality wrt
> audiotapes.
>
If you want to record to an analogue medium it pretty much has to be
some sort of tape. the only non tape analog recording medium I can
think of would be a cutting lathe and blank laquers. I don't think
that is very practical although it may be a lot of fun. If you are
having trouble finding the blank casstte tapes you want you may have
to go to reel to reel. This is one source for blank tapes that ought
to meet your needs.
http://www.oaktreeent.com/Reel-To-Reel_Tape.htm
There are plenty of excellent reel to reel recorders out there to
choose from.
C. Leeds
> ...transcribing that to LP will
> actually ADD some spurious, if pleasing to some, 'ambience' of its own, via euphonic
> distortion inherent in vinyl playback.
Please tell us how you know about this distortion that is "inherent" in
LP playback. What playback equipment have you used to determine this?
Please be specific: turntables, pickup arms, phono cartridges, phono
preamplifiers. Because you claim this playback characteristic is
"inherent," you must have experimented with more than one playback
system. Did you conduct any measurements which document your claim? If
so, please share. Have you mastered any LPs yourself, or participated in
the LP mastering process, that further establishes the veracity of your
claim? If so, are these recordings that we can purchase and listen to
ourselves?
I'd also be interested in what physical properties of LP playback result
in this "inherent" result. Surely, you must have a theory or two.
Or, as I suspect, is this claim simply opinion stated as fact?
Sonnova
(in article <6m4ea6F...@mid.individual.net>):
You know, it would be fun to find a discarded professional disc-cutter and
all of the ancillaries and set it up. But then, a stand-alone CD burner is
less trouble and most certainly superior! But (sigh) cutting one's own stereo
LP would be fun.
Sonnova
(in article <gdivt...@news7.newsguy.com>):
That's what I mean.
Steven Sullivan
There is another option between 'just my opinion' and 'I have personally
measured and verified the existence of these phenomena" -
knowledge passed on from trusted authorities. I daresay most of what
you have ever learned formally in your life, falls into that latter category.
So, just to be clear before we begin, woudl I be correct to believe that,
as far as you'e concerned, and despite the many times you have shared newsgroup
space with with folks like, say, Stewart Pinkerton or JJ, that you think LP euphonic
distortion is an urban legend without objective basis or
documentation? And there is some combination of rig + vinyl that
exhibits no such distortions?
isw
Sonnova <son...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:16:38 -0700, S888...@aol.com wrote
> (in article <6m4ea6F...@mid.individual.net>):
>
There's more work -- and cost -- there than you may appreciate. A
"professional" cutting system is more-or-less a roomful of electronics
with a cutting lathe at one end. Not the least requirement is the
continuous flow of helium through the cutter head, to keep it from
melting (helium can carry away a *lot* more heat than "air").
Check a good reference, such as John Eargle's book on recording
(probably long out of print).
Isaac
C. Leeds
>> > ...transcribing that to LP will
>>> actually ADD some spurious, if pleasing to some, 'ambience' of its own, via euphonic
>>> distortion inherent in vinyl playback.
I asked:
>> Please tell us how you know about this distortion that is "inherent" in
>> LP playback. What playback equipment have you used to determine this?
>> Please be specific...
>> I'd also be interested in what physical properties of LP playback result
>> in this "inherent" result....
>> Or, as I suspect, is this claim simply opinion stated as fact?
Mr. Sullivan answers:
> There is another option between 'just my opinion' and 'I have personally
> measured and verified the existence of these phenomena" -
> knowledge passed on from trusted authorities.
Please feel free to cite other sources if you lack first-hand experience
to justify your claims. Please be specific.
isw
"C. Leeds" <clee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Nothing to do with the type of equipment used; it's theoretically
provable. Check a good reference on the problems with capturing audio to
grooves.
Isaac
Harry Lavo
news:6m5uv4F...@mid.individual.net...
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>snip<
>>> Or, as I suspect, is this claim simply opinion stated as fact?
>
> Mr. Sullivan answers:
>
>> There is another option between 'just my opinion' and 'I have personally
>> measured and verified the existence of these phenomena" -
>> knowledge passed on from trusted authorities.
>
> Please feel free to cite other sources if you lack first-hand experience
> to justify your claims. Please be specific.
I think you'll find this group nowadays largely populated with folks quoting
"settled science", "trusted authorities", "well-proven" etc.in support of
the conventional wisdom. But when you ask for specifics, suddenly
conventional wisdom seems more like pass-along verities than it does
science.
Steven Sullivan
> I asked:
> Mr. Sullivan answers:
FWIW, I own a Systemdek IIX table with a Shure V15TuypeIVMR cart, have done for decades now.
It's basically mothballed, since the digital revolution, only hauled out to transfer the
occasional LP to digital.
As to other sources, the aforementioned James Johnston and Steware Pinkerton, for two. Please
feel free to acknowledge the fact that you've encountered them and their arguments
before, on, for example, this thread discussing LP sound:
I wouldn't expect you to have read these next posts of JJs, though. PLease do, since you
asked.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1445736&postcount=269
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12206518#post12206518
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12207540#post12207540
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=13631037#post13631037
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12246164#post12246164
Another source are ancient articles in JAES, back in the bad old days when LP was
the primary format. Like this one:
Performance Characteristics of the Commercial Stereo Disc
Volume 17 Number 4 pp. 416-422; August 1969
The study examines the state of the art in processing master lacquers through the intermediate
stages of metal plating on through to vinyl pressing. Detailed noise and distortion
measurements at each interface are described, and the effects of normal variations in
processes as well as changes in materials are noted.
More recently, this series of articles, including measurements:
--
-S
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can
seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit
the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have
woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy
Arny Krueger
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>> ...transcribing that to LP will
>> actually ADD some spurious, if pleasing to some,
>> 'ambience' of its own, via euphonic distortion inherent
>> in vinyl playback.
> Please tell us how you know about this distortion that is
> "inherent" in LP playback.
It is well-described in the techical literature. See the writings of Bauer,
etc.
It is easy to measure.
It is often clearly audible.
> What playback equipment have
> you used to determine this? Please be specific:
> turntables, pickup arms, phono cartridges, phono
> preamplifiers.
Equipment lists are unnecessary because there is no equipment that can avoid
it, given that it is inherent in the medium.
> Because you claim this playback
> characteristic is "inherent," you must have experimented
> with more than one playback system.
Starting with my first system that was based on an Audio Empire 108, to my
last system that based on a Shure V15 IV.
I have a number of friends who have also done independent measurements on
their own equipment. One of them even found a new kind of fairly severe
nonlinear distortion due to the use of offset tone arms. He had a paper
published in the JAES, meaning that his findings were recognized as being
factual by the AES review board. His name? Kilmanis. His co-author was
Rabinow, the Rab in Rabco.
> Did you conduct any
> measurements which document your claim?
Yes, but doing so was a bit silly on my part, given that I was already aware
of its existence via my own ears. You mean, you don't hear it?
All you need is a good test LP like the HFN test LP, a PC with a modern
audio interface, some DAW software like CoolEdit/Audition (I think Audacity
will suffice) and the LP playback equipment of your choice to measure the
inherent technical problems of the LP portrayed before you, if somehow your
ears don't already inform you well enough.
> If so, please
> share. Have you mastered any LPs yourself, or
> participated in the LP mastering process, that further
> establishes the veracity of your claim?
The mastering engineers that I have had personal contact with over the years
were well-aware of many of these problems. The technical literature for
mastering equipment often mentions how these problems are being addressed,
but not solved as they are inherently unsolvable.
The general solution for the inherent distortion, noise and producability
problems of the LP has been on the market for about 25 years. It is called
the Redbook CD format and it is generally accepted to be highly effective.
There are any number of papers, measurements, and listening tests that you
can examine that support these claims.
> I'd also be interested in what physical properties of LP
> playback result in this "inherent" result. Surely, you
> must have a theory or two.
No new theories are necessary, given all the technical literature about the
inherent technical problems with the LP that has been published over the
years. Check the JAES archives, for example. Search under author name =
Bauer.
UnsteadyKen
> But (sigh) cutting one's own stereo
> LP would be fun.
http://www.vestax.com/v/products/recorders/vrx2000.html
Do let us know how you get on.
I wonder how things would have developed if Berliners
flat disc had not caught on. 1 hour recordings on 3 foot
long cylinders perhaps.Admittedly storage would be a problem, but
look at the advantages: Easy stylus setup, no end of side
distortion.Audiophile recordings issued on 2 ft diameter cylinders.
Another lost opportunity by the audio industry.
--
Ken
ScottW
> "C. Leeds" <cleeds...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
You mean specifics like this statement, "That's not so much the vinyl
talking as it is your turntable/tonearm/cartridge." in response to
experience with problems like subsonic woofer pumping. I've seen
recent comments in forums like
it requires $15K minimum to obtain a decent vinyl playback system.
I find these comments more than guilty in the lack of specifics and
substance
department.
So let me add my own experience to the discussion. Woofer pumping is
a real issue for vinyl. I was aware of it when using my downfiring
sub by occasionally putting my ear near the port. Now with my open
baffle Orions (no sub) I can easily see the issue in action and it is
clearly record dependent. Now my rig is not 15K, but I'd like to see
someone prove to me that a solution for woofer pumping without
comprimising bass reproduction in vinyl playback has been developed.
I have insured my arm and cart are well matched and tested it
myself. IME, it isn't the rig, its the records. If not, explain
why some records are so much worse than others?
ScottW
S888...@aol.com
> C. Leeds <cleeds...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > >> �> ...transcribing that to LP will
> > >>> actually ADD some spurious, if pleasing to some, 'ambience' of its own, via euphonic
> > >>> distortion inherent in vinyl playback.
> > I asked:
> > >> Please tell us how you know about this distortion that is "inherent" in
> > >> LP playback. What playback equipment have you used to determine this?
> > >> Please be specific...
> > >> I'd also be interested in what physical properties of LP playback result
> > >> in this "inherent" result....
> > >> Or, as I suspect, is this claim simply opinion stated as fact?
> > Mr. Sullivan answers:
> > > There is another option between 'just my opinion' and 'I have personally
> > > measured and verified the existence of these phenomena" -
> > > knowledge passed on from trusted authorities.
> > Please feel free to cite other sources if you lack first-hand experience
> > to justify your claims. Please be specific.
>
> FWIW, I own a Systemdek IIX table with a Shure V15TuypeIVMR cart, have done for decades now.
> It's basically mothballed, since the digital revolution, only hauled out to transfer the
> occasional LP to digital.
>
> As to other sources, the aforementioned James Johnston and Steware Pinkerton, for two. Please
> feel free to acknowledge the fact that you've encountered them and their arguments �
> before, on, for example, this thread discussing LP sound:
>
There is nothing I could find in that thread stated by either
Pinkerton or JJ that supports the assertion of the existance of
inherent euphonic colorations in vinyl.
>
> I wouldn't expect you to have read these next posts of JJs, though. PLease do, since you
> asked.
>
> http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1445736&postcount=269
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12206518#post12206518
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12207540#post12207540
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=13631037#post13631037
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12246164#post12246164
JJ makes the following specific claims in the posts you cited
"But LP can sound like it has more dynamic range, because of the
distortion/loudness growth issues. Likewise, it can have a wider, more
complex soundstage for the same reasons. Many LP playback systems do
enhancement of the L-R part of the stereo signal due to both stylus
beam pivot issues as well as cartridge design issues."
There is nothing in there that says or even implies that these things
are inherent. "LP *can* sound like it has more dynamic range...."
That simply does not claim or even imply that it is an inherent
quality of LP playback. It simply is an assertion that it *can*
happen.
JJ however goes on to make some assertions that are at best vague if
not misleading or simply factually incorrect.
"LP can not have substantial low bass content in stereo. It's physics.
So it gets mono'ed and limited. LP's can not provide nearly the
dynamic range of a CD. So LP's to some extent have to be compressed,
but not by a lot. "
"Substantial" is too vague a word in this context to have any real
meaning. The fact is most LPs have not had their bass summed to mono.
this is a bit of an urban legend. It is also a fact that many an
audiophile LP has been cut in full stereo with bass content that many
inculding myself would argue is quite substantial.
JJ makes a very interesting assertion here about a euphonic coloration
of vinyl
"LP's distort more (percentagewise, whateverwise) at higher levels. A
polynomial model, in fact, seems to do a good representation of this
until outright mistracking happens. The model is different for M and S
(not L and R). This also turns out to be important, but not for the
reason we're discussing here.
This means that at low levels, the distortion is not very noticible.
At high levels, with the usual kind of lowpassy audio signal one sees
most often,it means that the spectrum will spread approximately two
octaves higher, with some substantial energy there. This means that
even though the energy will grow a bit, the loudness grows quite a
bit.
This creates the ILLUSION of more dynamic range.
You can do the same thing by taking a sine wave at, say, 100 Hz, and
starting to clip it. As you start to clip it, which has to absolutely
result in less total energy, you will notice quickly that it gets
LOUDER, not quieter, at first. This is another example (more extreme)
of the same effect."
While there seems to be some implication of universality here it isn't
clear or explicit.
JJ makes clear assertions about the existance and effects of inherent
euphonic colorations of vinyl.
"An LP does, demonstrably, have distortions that sound good. This is
not news, this is something long since documented. Now, there's
nothing wrong with liking those distortions, which in fact increase
the sense of dynamic range and all-over spatial effect, among other
things, but wouldn't it be better to add them to CD if you want to?
And understand what you're doing?"
Of course the big problem with all of this is it is pure testimonial.
As it stands in your post it is an argument by authority a classic
logical fallacy.
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp
"Argument from authority Stating that a claim is true because a person
or group of perceived authority says it is true. Often this argument
is implied by emphasizing the many years of experience, or the formal
degrees held by the individual making a specific claim. It is
reasonable to give more credence to the claims of those with the
proper background, education, and credentials, or to be suspicious of
the claims of someone making authoritative statements in an area for
which they cannot demonstrate expertise. But the truth of a claim
should ultimately rest on logic and evidence, not the authority of the
person promoting it. "
That is not to say JJ is incorrect in any of his assertions about the
inherent euphonic colorations of vinyl. It simply isn't the sort of
citation that really supports your assertions. I think it would be
great to find the actual documentation JJ refered to. Without that
sort of data from which to make assertions, we run the risk of
unknowingly promoting urban legend.
>
> Another source are ancient articles in JAES, back in the bad old days when LP was
> the primary format. Like this one:
>
> Performance Characteristics of the Commercial Stereo Disc
> Volume 17 Number 4 pp. 416-422; August 1969
> The study examines the state of the art in processing master lacquers through the intermediate
> stages of metal plating on through to vinyl pressing. Detailed noise and distortion
> measurements at each interface are described, and the effects of normal variations in
> processes as well as changes in materials are noted.
1969? That would strike as rather dated. I think it is simply unfair
to assume there has been no advancement in the state of the art of
laquer cutting and vinyl playback. By most accounts there has been
substantial incrimental improvements in both technologies over the
past forty years. I hope you wouldn't assert that SOTA playback from
1969 is even in the same ballpark as the Rockport Sirius III or the
offerings from Continuum. I suggest you read some of the cutting edge
technology that goes into their rigs.
http://www.continuumaudiolabs.com/
>
> More recently, this series of articles, including measurements:
>
> http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/features/technical-topics/vinyl-vs.-cd...
An interesting article but it fails to go the whole nine yards and do
controlled listening tests that isolate the alleged distortion and
gauge it's effect on listeners. As I have said in another thread I
started, I don't doubt the existance of inherent colorations of vinyl
nor do I doubt the existance of euphonic colorations. as to inherent
colorations in vinyl being in some cases euphonic, I think it is a
reasonable theory but I have yet to see any meaningful listening tests
that support it.
Steven Sullivan
Kilmanas, Raymond; Rabinow, J.
Tonearm Geometry and Frequency-Modulation Distortion- and Discussion
JAES Volume 30 Issue 9 pp. 574-579; September 1982
btw, Arny, a reply to your email bounced.
and here's a JAES golden oldie
Clark, H. A. M.; Dutton, G. F.; Vanderlyn, P. B.
The 'Stereosonic' Recording and Reproducing System: A Two-Channel Systems for Domestic Tape
Records
JAES Volume 6 Issue 2 pp. 102-117; April 1958
and some miscellanea
Lipshitz, Stanley P.
Impulse Response of the Pickup Arm-Cartridge System
JAES Volume 26 Issue 1/2 pp. 20-35; February 1978
Anderson, Roger
Some Aspects of Wear and Calibration of Test Records
JAES Volume 9 Issue 2 pp. 111-114; April 1961
Shiga, Takeo
Deformation Distortion in Disc Records
JAES Volume 14 Issue 3 pp. 208-217; July 1966
(this article spawned a subset of others:
Cooper, Duane H.
Comments on and Corrections to: "Deformation Distortion in Disc Records"
JAES Volume 16 Issue 4 p. 479; October 1968
White, James V.
An Experimental Study of Groove Deformation in Phonograph Records
JAES Volume 18 Issue 5 pp. 497-506; October 1970
Barlow, Donald A.; Garside, Gerald R.
Groove Deformation and Distortion in Recordings
JAES Volume 26 Issue 7/8 pp. 498-510; August 1978
Barlow, D. A.
More About "Groove Deformation and Distortion in Records"
JAES Volume 27 Issue 3 p. 164; March 1979
Daniel W.; Gust, Arthur J.; Bauer, Benjamin B.
The Dynamic Range of Disc and Tape Records
JAES Volume 18 Issue 5 pp. 530-535; October 1970
Jakobs, Bernhard W.
Analysis of Crosstalk on Stereo Test Records
JAES Volume 19 Issue 4 pp. 280-287; April 1971
Barlow, D. A.
More About "Groove Deformation and Distortion in Records"
JAES Volume 27 Issue 3 p. 164; March 1979
finally, this 'look to the future' circa 1977:
Stockham, Jr., Thomas G.
Records of the Future
JAES Volume 25 Issue 10/11 pp. 892-895; November 1977
The nature of our future phonograph records will probably be tied strongly to future technical
innovations. Right now the most dramatic technical change for the long term would seem to be
digital audio. The concurrent evolutions in computer technologies and consumer video recording
might point to the advent of digital audio records. This paper outlines the possibilities in
general terms.
Arny Krueger
> Mr. Sullivan answers:
>
>> There is another option between 'just my opinion' and 'I
>> have personally measured and verified the existence of
>> these phenomena" -
>> knowledge passed on from trusted authorities.
>
> Please feel free to cite other sources if you lack
> first-hand experience to justify your claims. Please be
> specific.
AES E-Library: The High-Fidelity Phonograph Transducer by Bauer, Benjamin B.
The High-Fidelity Phonograph Transducer
JAES Volume 25 Issue 10/11 pp. 729-748; November 1977
AES E-Library: -Tonearm Geometry and Frequency-Modulation Distortion- and
Discussion by Kilmanas, Raymond; Rabinow, J.
-Tonearm Geometry and Frequency-Modulation Distortion- and Discussion
C. Leeds
>>>> > ...transcribing that to LP will
>>>>> actually ADD some spurious, if pleasing to some, 'ambience' of its own, via euphonic
>>>>> distortion inherent in vinyl playback.
>
>> I asked:
>
>>>> Please tell us how you know about this distortion that is "inherent" in
>>>> LP playback....
>
>> Mr. Sullivan answers:
(snipped)...
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.high-end/browse_frm/thread/60f22e61be5581a4/5fbf206f370e89b5?&hl=en#5fbf206f370e89b5
>
> I wouldn't expect you to have read these next posts of JJs, though. PLease do, since you
> asked.
>
> http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1445736&postcount=269
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12206518#post12206518
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12207540#post12207540
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=13631037#post13631037
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12246164#post12246164
Perhaps I missed it, but I see nothing in these posts to support your
claim of inherent, audible "distortion inherent in vinyl playback."
If the proof is there, please post it here.
Steven Sullivan
Bauer, Benjamin B.; Schwartz, Arnold; Gust, Arthur J.
Transient Response and Intermodulation Studies in Phonograph Reproduction
JAES Volume 11 Issue 2 pp. 110-114; April 1963
Bauer, Benjamin B.
Groove Echo in Lacquer Masters
JAES Volume 19 Issue 10 pp. 847-850; November 1971
Gravereaux, Daniel W.; Gust, Arthur J.; Bauer, Benjamin B.
Phase-Shift Characteristics of Record Cutters and Pickups
JAES Volume 20 Issue 1 pp. 15-18; February 1972
Bauer, Benjamin B.
The High-Fidelity Phonograph Transducer
JAES Volume 25 Issue 10/11 pp. 729-748; November 1977
Arny Krueger
news:gdlkm...@news6.newsguy.com
> On Oct 21, 12:00?pm, Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix.com>>>>>> ?> ...transcribing that to LP will
No, much of it is general knowlege among people who are familiar with the
technical literature of the vinyl LP, some of which I've cited here on a
number of occasions, including the last two days.
>> More recently, this series of articles, including
>> measurements:
>> http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/features/technical-topics/vinyl-vs.-cd...
These articles substantiate many of the things that JJ said.
> An interesting article but it fails to go the whole nine
> yards and do controlled listening tests that isolate the
> alleged distortion and gauge it's effect on listeners.
The articles explain why subjective tests must fail to provide definitive
results. Basically, LPs are so sonically flawed in characteristic ways that
listeners will often be able to identify which format they are listening to,
and the so-called blind listening test will not be effectively blind, and
will degenerate into a public opinion survey.
Harry Lavo
news:gdlk7...@news6.newsguy.com...
I don't have enough experience with woofer pumping to know who is right, but
I suspect it probably is a record warp or cutting issue. However, to me the
really relevant issues beyond what causes it, is:does it matter:
* Does it affect what you hear?
* Is it inaudible (consciously) but somehow still intereferes with enjoyment
of the music?
If so, then it is a strike against vinyl. If not, then it offers no favor
to CD.
And my guess is there has been NO scientific work done to provide answers to
those questions.
Harry
Arny Krueger
>From the hometheaterhifi.com reference:
"The stylus is attempting to translate both channels at the same time, and
because the movement of the stylus shares some common direction (the stylus
moves downward for both left and right channels), there is some bleeding of
each channel into the other, called "crosstalk". In fact, channel separation
is "only" about 30 dB. In other words, if you had a groove where there was a
1 kHz sine wave recorded only in the left channel, and you played it back at
100 dB from the left speaker, you would also hear that sine wave in the
right channel at 70 dB."
This compares with crosstalk on the order of 90+ dB down for the CD format.
"Because the translation of the sound from the groove to the stylus requires
that the stylus be falling into the valleys or pushed up with the peaks in
the groove, having a out of phase information in the left vs. right channel
causes some issues with the laws of physics. In other words, if there is a
valley in the left channel at the exact same time there is a peak in the
right channel, the stylus finds it a little difficult to be going in
opposite directions at the same time. The result? Inaccurate signal
reproduction at that instant in time. So, LPs cannot handle a lot of
material that is out of phase between the left and right channels."
The CD format has no such difficulties.
"Here is a graph of the spectrum generated from the test CD. THD+N was
0.005%."
"At 1 kHz, 0 dB, (LP) distortion was 7%. "Wow, that's a lot of distortion,"
you say. You bet it is..."
etc., etc., etc.
Arny Krueger
> Woofer pumping is a real issue for vinyl.
There are three sources of this problem - warped records , tone arm
resonance, and acoustic feedback.
As others have pointed out, digital transcriptions provide an effective
means for avoiding acoustic feedback. Digital processing can also help
mitigate the problems related to tone arm resonance and warping of the
record.
> Now my rig is not 15K, but I'd
> like to see someone prove to me that a solution for
> woofer pumping without compromising bass reproduction in
> vinyl playback has been developed.
(1) Do a digital transcription with your speakers turned off.
(2) Use FFT analysis to determine the nature of any spurious low-frequency
responses.
(3) Use digital filtering to manage to low frequency spurious responses.
S888...@aol.com
> <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote in message
This is just another argument by authority. you are just repeating the
classic
logical fallacy.
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp
"Argument from authority Stating that a claim is true because a
person
or group of perceived authority says it is true. Often this argument
is implied by emphasizing the many years of experience, or the formal
degrees held by the individual making a specific claim. It is
reasonable to give more credence to the claims of those with the
proper background, education, and credentials, or to be suspicious of
the claims of someone making authoritative statements in an area for
which they cannot demonstrate expertise. But the truth of a claim
should ultimately rest on logic and evidence, not the authority of
the
person promoting it. "
This time instead of using JJ you are simply alluding to
"general knowlege among people who are familiar with the technical
literature of the vinyl LP."
Again, I am not saying these assertions are false just that your
argument is problematic for reasons stated above. I haven't seen the
actual evidence upon which these assertions are being made. I would
rather see the evidence before accpeting this alleged
general knowledge as something more than another urban legend. As it
stands all I see is a reasonable theory that has not actually been
tested.
>
> >> More recently, this series of articles, including
> >> measurements:
> >>http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/features/technical-topics/vinyl-vs.-cd...
>
> These articles substantiate many of the things that JJ said.
>
> > An interesting article but it fails to go the whole nine
> > yards and do controlled listening tests that isolate the
> > alleged distortion and gauge it's effect on listeners.
>
> The articles explain why subjective tests must fail to provide definitive
> results. Basically, LPs are so sonically flawed in characteristic ways that
> listeners will often be able to identify which format they are listening to,
> and the so-called blind listening test will not be effectively blind, and
> will degenerate into a public opinion survey.- Hide quoted text -
>
It seems you are saying this theory is untestable. I would think that
would be very problematic for any assertion/theory. But I also think
it is a very tesable assertion/theory actually. As I see it one way to
test that there are *inherent euphonic* colorations in vinyl is to
first identify the alleged colorations then master two sets of CDs
from various sources, one version of each source would be a flat
transfer a second version of each source would be an otherwise flat
transfer only with the addition of the specific distortions that are
allegedly having a euphoric effect. Then do blind comparisons. If the
CDs with those specific added distortions prove to be found preferable
in any way you have gone a long way towards varifying the theory of
the euphonic nature of these distortions. I don't know that anyone has
tried this yet with any success. I see that you and Steve have cited a
long list of papers on the subject of LP playback published in the
AESJ. Perhaps you could provide some relevant passages from these
papers that assert the claim about the existance of *inherent
euphonic* distortions. If so i might find it worth while to buy the
whole paper from the AESJ. Please keep in mind, I am not contesting
the claim that there are inherent distortions in LP playback. I have
seen the arguments and the supporting evidence to accept this as fact.
Nor am I contesting the existance of euphonic distortions. As I have
said in another thread, I spent some big bucks on them. In fact I am
not even contesting the assertion that there are inherent euphonic
colorations. I'd just like to see the stuff upon which the assertion
of fact is made. As a vinyl enthusiast I have no problem with the idea
that there are inherent advantages to that medium via inherent
euphonic colorations. Like I said, I already invested a substantial
amount of money in euphonic colorations. It's just that those
colorations aren't inherent in vinyl but to some degree unique to my
TT rig.
Arny Krueger
news:6m6n6tF...@mid.individual.net
> C. Leeds <clee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>
>>>> > ...transcribing that to LP will
>>>>> actually ADD some spurious, if pleasing to some,
>>>>> 'ambience' of its own, via euphonic distortion
>>>>> inherent in vinyl playback.
> More recently, this series of articles, including
> measurements:
Steven, you might find this to be an interesting comparison:
Please compare
Note that this graphic shows a 1 KHz tone, with the second harmonic about 20
dB down, which I call 10% second harmonic nonlinear distortion. 10%
distortion is a *lot* of distortion by any standard. There's no question as
to its audibility under a wide variety of conditions. And, it should be
given no special allowance or tolerance on the ground that it is a so-called
"euphonic" harmonic - the same nonlinearity *must* create equally egregious
amounts of IM when playing real-world music.
to:
http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/rega-2/grado-SNR.gif
Note that this graphic shows a 300 Hz tone, with the second and third
harmonics each 40-45 dB down, which I call less than one percent second and
third harmonic distortion.
Simple question - which LP player is doing the better job of providing a
relatively low-distortion rendition of the recording being played - the one
with a stated 7% THD+N or the one with less than 0.7% THD+N?
Steven Sullivan
> It seems you are saying this theory is untestable. I would think that
> would be very problematic for any assertion/theory. But I also think
> it is a very tesable assertion/theory actually. As I see it one way to
> test that there are *inherent euphonic* colorations in vinyl is to
> first identify the alleged colorations then master two sets of CDs
> from various sources, one version of each source would be a flat
> transfer a second version of each source would be an otherwise flat
> transfer only with the addition of the specific distortions that are
> allegedly having a euphoric effect.
Or, carefully transcribe an LP from a well-recorded CD master. Play it on a good rig. Match
levels with the CD. Compare double blind to see if there's an audible difference. Whatever
that difference is, can be reasonably concluded to be coming from the LP production/playback
process.
It's funny that after demanding that I do the research in the first place, you guys are now
requesting the particular sentences from particular articles about inherent euphonic
distortion -- each one at $20 a pop. I wonder if we'll be questioning the existence of
'euphonic' analog tape compression next.
Apparentlyy it's the 'inherent' part that causes issues with some of you. If so, please
render opinions on three things:
1) under what condition the possible, and well documented, sources of distortion in the
LP chain, are rendered inaudible
2) an estimate of how often these conditions are met by vinyl product and vinylphiles' home
setups (commonly? rarely?)
3) how this squares with the ubiquity of the report of 'vinyl sound' by those who prefer
vinyl. That is to say, is it LIKELY that all the people who prefer vinyl, are doing so under
conditions where euphonic distortion is NOT present? If so, this would suggest the difference
is mainly, if not wholly, due to mastering differences, which is one of the two reason I gave
originally, and not the format itself.
Steven Sullivan
> Please compare
> to:
> http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/rega-2/grado-SNR.gif
The Rega/Grado combo, by that metric. However,
if the Secrets' author's contention hat 2nd order harmonic distortion
is euphonic is true, then some listeners might subjectively prefer MORE of it,
via the Macintosh rig!
Either way you marked the Rega/Grado as 'Poor' in that category.
http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/rega-2/
That 'jitter distortion' measurment is interesting, I don't recall Stereophile
calling it that when they test vinyl rigs ;>
Also intersting to compare the TT/cart results to something digital as humble as, say...a Sony
portable CDP
http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/Sony_D-220/index.htm
Arny Krueger
news:6m8naoF...@mid.individual.net
> On Oct 21, 8:17�pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com>
> wrote:
>> <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:gdlkm...@news6.newsguy.com
>>> "An LP does, demonstrably, have distortions that sound
>>> good. This is not news, this is something long since
>>> documented. Now, there's nothing wrong with liking those
>>> distortions, which in fact increase the sense of dynamic
>>> range and all-over spatial effect, among other things,
>>> but wouldn't it be better to add them to CD if you want
>>> to? And understand what you're doing?"
>>> Of course the big problem with all of this is it is pure
>>> testimonial.
>> No, much of it is general knowledge among people who are
>> familiar with the technical literature of the vinyl LP,
>> some of which I've cited here on a number of occasions,
>> including the last two days.
> This is just another argument by authority.
It's an argument by authority until you analyze the technical papers for
their conformance with generally accepted knowledge about the laws of
Physics and Math, and in my case, independently confirm their results for
yourself.
Now I grant you that the concept of hard fast physical laws might seem like
religious faith to people that are a bit shy of technical training on the
scale of extensive study for an advanced degree in Engineering (following
successfully obtaining a BSE), and decades of hands-on experience in various
technical fields, both analytical and practical. I guess such folks need to
bear with those of us who have "Been There And Done That".
>>>> More recently, this series of articles, including
>>>> measurements:
>>>> http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/features/technical-topics/vinyl-vs.-cd...
>> These articles substantiate many of the things that JJ
>> said.
>>> An interesting article but it fails to go the whole nine
>>> yards and do controlled listening tests that isolate the
>>> alleged distortion and gauge it's effect on listeners.
>> The articles explain why subjective tests must fail to
>> provide definitive results. Basically, LPs are so
>> sonically flawed in characteristic ways that listeners
>> will often be able to identify which format they are
>> listening to, and the so-called blind listening test
>> will not be effectively blind, and will degenerate into
>> a public opinion survey.- Hide quoted text -
> It seems you are saying this theory is untestable.
Actually, I'm saying that the audible difference is so obvious that it
bollixes up most attempts to actually do a serious blind test. Gosh, I'm
sounding like... ;-)
> I would think that would be very problematic for any
> assertion/theory. But I also think it is a very testable
> assertion/theory actually. As I see it one way to test
> that there are *inherent euphonic* colorations in vinyl
> is to first identify the alleged colorations then master
> two sets of CDs from various sources, one version of each
> source would be a flat transfer a second version of each
> source would be an otherwise flat transfer only with the
> addition of the specific distortions that are allegedly
> having a euphoric effect.
Been there and done that via a slightly different but equivalent technique
for the now departed www.pcabx.com web site.
> Then do blind comparisons.
www.pcabx.com even let folks do their own blind comparisons.
There was no real news for well-informed audiophiles and technicians. 7%
second harmonic distortion is audible. THD+N of 10% is pretty easy to hear
as compared to CD quality.
Nothing new there!
> If the CDs with those specific added distortions prove to be
> found preferable in any way you have gone a long way
> towards verifying the theory of the euphonic nature of
> these distortions.
Let me reiterate the relevant facts. The added distortion inherent in the LP
format or for that matter SET amplifiers is of no interest of about 99% of
all music lovers. They won't spend a dime or go even just one inch out of
their way to get it, as long as they can avoid it by staying in the
mainstream.
There do appear to be a miniscule fraction of people who actually prefer to
listen to music sources and power amplifiers with bumpy frequency response
and 5-10% THD. They appear to be willing to even spend amounts of money that
seem vast, to simple bumpkins such as myself. God bless them!
> I see that you and Steve have
> cited a long list of papers on the subject of LP playback
> published in the AESJ.
I believe that you have already dismissed JJ's summary of them as "proof by
authority" and/or "proof by assertion".
Therefore, I feel no need to produce any further compendiums of them, as my
efforts are likely to be inferior to JJ's excellent work.
S888...@aol.com
> S888Wh...@aol.com wrote:
> > It seems you are saying this theory is untestable. I would think that
> > would be very problematic for any assertion/theory. But I also think
> > it is a very tesable assertion/theory actually. As I see it one way to
> > test that there are *inherent euphonic* colorations in vinyl is to
> > first identify the alleged colorations then master two sets of CDs
> > from various sources, one version of each source would be a flat
> > transfer a second version of each source would be an otherwise flat
> > transfer only with the �addition of the specific distortions that are
> > allegedly having a euphoric effect.
>
> Or, carefully transcribe an LP from a well-recorded CD master. Play it on a good rig. �Match
> levels with the CD. Compare double blind to see if there's an audible difference. Whatever
> that difference is, can be reasonably concluded to be coming from the LP production/playback
> process.
That would be a very good test as well. One would have to be very
careful not to ascribe the specific colorations of the equipment used
to being an unherent coloration of the medium. I think to avoid that
one would have to use at least a few SOTA TT rigs and very carefully
measure all the various distortions from each rig. Only the common
distortions can be considered possibly inherent. But your proposal
isn't that much different than mine. I was assuming the alleged
euphonic distortion was well enough understood that it could be
generated without actually using any TT rigs or cutting lathes. Your
proposal is actually probably better than mine but should consider
enough SOTA TT rigs to isolate unique colorations of any given rig
from inherent colorations fo the medium.
>
> It's funny that after demanding that I do the research in the first place,
What? You did the research after you made the assertion? I was
assuming you had already done the research.
> you guys are now
> requesting the particular sentences from particular articles about inherent euphonic
> distortion -- each one at $20 a pop.
Exactly. I really don't want to spend a couple hundred bucks only to
find out you cited a bunch of irrelevant material. I only asked for
excerpts so I can see for myself the stuff is relevant before laying
down some serious coin for a bunch of AESJ papers. That's money I can
spend on records. I'm not buying sight unseen.
> �I wonder if we'll be questioning the existence of
> 'euphonic' analog tape compression next. �
Quite possibly.
>
> Apparentlyy it's the 'inherent' part that causes issues with some of you. If so, please
> render opinions on three things:
No. I have stated that I am quite convinced that there are inherent
colorations in vinyl playback.
>
> 1) under what condition the possible, and well documented, sources of distortion in the
> LP chain, are rendered inaudible
First we have to establish what the well documented inherent
colorations actually are.
Lets take one; surface noise. Under what condition is that in audible?
simple when the dynamic range of the source material allows the signal
to mask it at all times.
What's next? Cross talk? That's a tougher one to answer as to what
conditions would render it inaudible. Mono playback? I think this is a
tricky one to nail down. The effects can be quite sublime.
Wow, flutter, rumble? Those can be reduced to levels bellow the
thresholds of human hearing. They are present in any number of less
than ideal setups but they are not inherent *audible* colorations.
Thank goodness the good folks involed in designing Turntables, pickup
arms and cartridges along with the good folks updating and modifying
cutting lathes have been making meaningful progress in reducing these
colorations from the equipment to levels below the thresholds of human
hearing. So if you do decide to post some relevant excerpts from any
of those AESJ papers please understand that I will be critical of
their vintage. The state of the art in producing and playing back of
vinyl has been an ever improving target.
>
> 2) an estimate of how often these conditions are met by vinyl product and vinylphiles' home
> setups (commonly? �rarely?)
I could not begin to make any meaningful estimate.
>
> 3) how this squares with the ubiquity of the report of 'vinyl sound' by those who prefer
> vinyl. �That is to say, is it LIKELY that all the people who prefer vinyl, are doing so under
> conditions where euphonic distortion is NOT present? �If so, this would suggest the difference
> is mainly, if not wholly, due to mastering differences, which is one of the two reason I gave
> originally, and not the format itself.
I agree that mastering is a major issue and plays into sound quality
far more than any inherent colorations of LP CDs SACDs etc. I think
with LPs the equipment unfortunately also plays a major factor.
Arny Krueger
> Arny Krueger <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>> Steven, you might find this to be an interesting
>> comparison:
>> Note that this graphic shows a 1 KHz tone, with the
>> second harmonic about 20 dB down, which I call 10%
>> second harmonic nonlinear distortion. 10% distortion is
>> a *lot* of distortion by any standard. There's no
>> question as to its audibility under a wide variety of
>> conditions. And, it should be given no special allowance
>> or tolerance on the ground that it is a so-called
>> "euphonic" harmonic - the same nonlinearity *must*
>> create equally egregious amounts of IM when playing
>> real-world music.
>
>> to:
>
>> http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/rega-2/grado-SNR.gif
>
>> Note that this graphic shows a 300 Hz tone, with the
>> second and third harmonics each 40-45 dB down, which I
>> call less than one percent second and third harmonic
>> distortion.
>> Simple question - which LP player is doing the better
>> job of providing a relatively low-distortion rendition
>> of the recording being played - the one with a stated
>> 7% THD+N or the one with less than 0.7% THD+N?
> The Rega/Grado combo, by that metric. However,
> if the Secrets' author's contention that 2nd order
> harmonic distortion is euphonic is true, then some listeners might
> subjectively prefer MORE of it, via the Macintosh rig!
That cartridge in the Mac player had to be tricked-up at the factory to have
so much distortion.
If someone wants 2nd order nonlinear distortion in such large quantities,
why not just build a nonlinear transfer device using analog Multiplier or
VCA chips, or just do it in the digital domain with a DSP?
It seems to me that building cartridges or amplifiers with a certain
distortion profile is the hard, non-adjustable way to go.
Creating nonlinear distortion in Audition or CEP is very easy - that's how I
built the test files for the old pcabx site.
> Either way you marked the Rega/Grado as 'Poor' in that
> category.
> http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/rega-2/
Yes, I compared the Rega player to the same standard I use for digital
players. The relatively poor jitter and dynamic range issues dominated the
evaluation.
> That 'jitter distortion' measurement is interesting, I
> don't recall Stereophile calling it that when they test vinyl rigs ;>
It's all FM distortion, whether you call it jitter or flutter or wow.
SP don't seem to use the same standards or even the same nomenclature for
digital players as vinyl or tubes.
> Also interesting to compare the TT/cart results to
> something digital as humble as, say...a Sony portable CDP
> http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/Sony_D-220/index.htm
By modern standards that old Sony is pretty humble.
I just don't understand this double/triple standard stuff. We listen to it
all with the same ears and brain, right?
S888...@aol.com
Actually your argument was an argument by authority regardless of what
I do or what I know. Faulty logic is faulty logic even if it is used
in support of a legitimate position. I would be quite happy to read
any relevant AESJ papers on the inherent euphonic colorations of
vinyl. I only ask that someone demonstrate to my satisfaction that the
papers actually are relevant before I buy them. If you feel that is an
unreasonable position then we are at an impasse. But how important is
it that I accept Steve Sullivan's and your assertions as fact? I
accept them as reasonable theories. I should hope it is clear to you
and anybody else reading these posts that I have no philisophical
problems with the enjoyment of euphonic colorations given the amount
of coin I've dropped on such colorations for my own system.
>
> Now I grant you that the concept of hard fast physical laws might seem like
> religious faith to people that are a bit shy of technical training on the
> scale of extensive study for an advanced degree in Engineering (following
> successfully obtaining a BSE), and decades of hands-on experience in various
> technical fields, both analytical and practical. I guess such folks need to
> bear with those of us who have "Been There And Done That".
No they don't. I belive it is healthy to question authority. Real
authorities should have no trouble in presenting more compelling
arguments than "because I said so." So if you are trying to justify
arguments by authority I'm sorry to say I'm not interested. Argument
by authority is a faulty method of argument no matter how you dress
it.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> More recently, this series of articles, including
> >>>> measurements:
> >>>>http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/features/technical-topics/vinyl-vs.-cd...
> >> These articles substantiate many of the things that JJ
> >> said.
> >>> An interesting article but it fails to go the whole nine
> >>> yards and do controlled listening tests that isolate the
> >>> alleged distortion and gauge it's effect on listeners.
> >> The articles explain why subjective tests must fail to
> >> provide definitive results. Basically, LPs are so
> >> sonically flawed in characteristic ways that listeners
> >> will often be able to identify which format they are
> >> listening to, and the so-called blind listening test
> >> will not be effectively blind, and will degenerate into
> >> a public opinion survey.- Hide quoted text -
> > It seems you are saying this theory is untestable.
>
> Actually, I'm saying that the audible difference is so obvious that it
> bollixes up most attempts to actually do a serious blind test. Gosh, I'm
> sounding like... �;-)
How does the obviousness of the differences prevent a blind test from
determining the qualitative impression those differences will have on
listeners? The question is about "euphonic" distortions.
>
> > I �would think that would be very problematic for any
> > assertion/theory. But I also think it is a very testable
> > assertion/theory actually. As I see it one way to test
> > that there are *inherent euphonic* colorations in vinyl
> > is to first identify the alleged colorations then master
> > two sets of CDs from various sources, one version of each
> > source would be a flat transfer a second version of each
> > source would be an otherwise flat transfer only with the
> > addition of the specific distortions that are allegedly
> > having a euphoric effect.
>
> Been there and done that via a slightly different but equivalent technique
> for the now departedwww.pcabx.comweb site.
But you just said "I'm saying that the audible difference is so
obvious that it
bollixes up most attempts to actually do a serious blind test."
Perhaps you could give us the details of these tests.
>
> > Then do blind comparisons.
>
> www.pcabx.comeven let folks do their own blind comparisons.
I can compare a flat transfer of a recording to CD vs. a transfer of
the same recording that is also flat other than the addition of the
alleged euphonic distortions that are determined to be intrinsic in
vinyl playback? How did you manage to isolate the "inherent euphonic"
colorations of vinyl and how did you replicate them for such a test?
>
> There was no real news for well-informed audiophiles and technicians. 7%
> second harmonic distortion is audible. � THD+N of 10% is pretty easy to hear
> as compared to CD quality.
>
> Nothing new there!
>
We are talking about alleged "intrinsic euphonic" distortions here.
That at best shows some of the specific distortions of that rig with
that specific test disc. And in the end it tells very little about the
sound.
> > If �the CDs with those specific added distortions prove to be
> > found preferable in any way you have gone a long way
> > towards verifying the theory of the euphonic nature of
> > these distortions.
>
> Let me reiterate the relevant facts. The added distortion inherent in the LP
> format or for that matter SET amplifiers is of no interest of about 99% of
> all music lovers. They won't spend a dime or go even just one inch out of
> their way to get it, as long as �they can avoid it by staying in the
> mainstream.
>
> There do appear to be a miniscule fraction of people who actually prefer to
> listen to music sources and power amplifiers with bumpy frequency response
> and 5-10% THD. They appear to be willing to even spend amounts of money that
> seem vast, to simple bumpkins such as myself. God bless them!
Thank you for your blessings. Given that most of those same music
lovers are happily listening to music that is painfully compressed
through less than excellent playback equipment, I don't give their
lack of interest in such things much weight. I prefer to decide the
merits of such things via personal experience. You have clearly
communicated *your* feelings about SETs and vinyl playback. But I
don't see the relevance of your opinions about such things to the
question of the existance of these alleged inherent euphonic
colorations of vinyl.
>
> > I see that you and Steve have
> > cited a long list of papers on the subject of LP playback
> > published in the AESJ.
>
> I believe that you have already dismissed JJ's summary of them as "proof by
> authority" and/or "proof by assertion".
No. I have pointed out that Steve's and your citation of his summary
on it's own is still an just an argument by authority. I am not sure
how this is relevant to my request that someone post some relevant
excerpts of the AESJ papers you and Steve have cited so I can see for
myself that they are actually relevant to the subject of inherent
euphonic colorations of vinyl.
>
> Therefore, I feel no need to produce any further compendiums of them, as my
> efforts are likely to be inferior to JJ's excellent work.- Hide quoted text -
Perhaps I have more confidence in the merits of the contents of those
AESJ papers than you. All I ask is that someone post some excerpts to
show the relevance of those papers to the subject at hand. Oh and the
dates. I do worry about the material being too dated to be relevant to
todays state of the art. But it really isn't that important that I
accept your assertions as fact. I accept them as reasonable theories.
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
ScottW
> "ScottW" <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:gdlk7...@news6.newsguy.com
>
> > Woofer pumping is a real issue for vinyl.
>
> There are three sources of this problem - warped records , tone arm
> resonance, and acoustic feedback.
I can see the woofers oddly dancing at a frequency quite a bit
higher than a record warp produces. I don't see much impact
when playing my few warped records.
I can also see the woofers dancing during silent passages between
songs
on some records so if it was acoustic feedback during silence, I have
no idea how
music would leave the stylus in the groove.
Tone arm resonance shouldn't be so record dependent, so I am
left to conclude that what I see is a problem cut in the vinyl.
ScottW
ScottW
> "ScottW" <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Indirectly. The open baffle woofers of the Orion have increasing 1/f
slope
in the crossover.
So the woofer displacement at low f is significantly aggravated over a
box design.
Owners have warned of playing vinyl at high levels can cause woofer
bottoming (exceeding displacement) so it does preclude high listening
levels. While I don't listen at very high levels IMO, I usually invoke
a 50 hz
filter option just to be safe and avoid the hypnotic dance of my
woofers.
I need to get around to mounting the grills :).
ScottW
Arny Krueger
news:6ma6ffF...@mid.individual.net
It wasn't an argument by authority.
> Faulty logic is
> faulty logic even if it is used in support of a
> legitimate position.
Arguing over logic is what people do when the facts are running against them
very strongly.
> I would be quite happy to read any
> relevant AESJ papers on the inherent euphonic colorations
> of vinyl.
They've been cited on Usenet for at least 20 years.
> I only ask that someone demonstrate to my
> satisfaction that the papers actually are relevant before
> I buy them.
That would appear to be a highly elusive goal.
> If you feel that is an unreasonable position
> then we are at an impasse.
The clause "my satisfaction" creates the impasse.
Are you familiar with the concept and execution of "Academic Research"? If
one does academic research, one does not ask anybody to demonstrate the
validity or relevance of documents before you study them for yourself. That
is your job!
One ends up spending time and money on the chance that said documents might
be valid or relevant.Often 90% or more of the documents that one reviews
fail to be adequately valid and/or relevant.
> But how important is it that I
> accept Steve Sullivan's and your assertions as fact?
It is completely unimportant to me. My job is to create a forum in which
reasonable efforts are made to expose the relevant facts. I have no
illusions about turning communists into capitalists by the force of my
words.
> I accept them as reasonable theories.
Then you've already admitted that the papers are relevant, because they
contain as you say, "reasonable theories".
Jenn
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
> Let me reiterate the relevant facts. The added distortion inherent in the LP
> format or for that matter SET amplifiers is of no interest of about 99% of
> all music lovers. They won't spend a dime or go even just one inch out of
> their way to get it, as long as they can avoid it by staying in the
> mainstream.
>
> There do appear to be a miniscule fraction of people who actually prefer to
> listen to music sources and power amplifiers with bumpy frequency response
> and 5-10% THD. They appear to be willing to even spend amounts of money that
> seem vast, to simple bumpkins such as myself. God bless them!
You seem to assert that sound quality is the principal reason that
vastly more people listen to digital sources than LPs. Obviously, there
are many other factors involved. Additionally, most people don't seem
to be very interested in quality sound at all. They seem to have no
complaint about the quality of highly compressed recordings and low bit
rate downloads.
Arny Krueger
news:gdqtj...@news7.newsguy.com
> In article <gdo9e...@news7.newsguy.com>,
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>>
>> Let me reiterate the relevant facts. The added
>> distortion inherent in the LP format or for that matter
>> SET amplifiers is of no interest of about 99% of all
>> music lovers. They won't spend a dime or go even just
>> one inch out of their way to get it, as long as they
>> can avoid it by staying in the mainstream.
>>
>> There do appear to be a miniscule fraction of people who
>> actually prefer to listen to music sources and power
>> amplifiers with bumpy frequency response and 5-10% THD.
>> They appear to be willing to even spend amounts of money
>> that seem vast, to simple bumpkins such as myself. God
>> bless them!
>
> You seem to assert that sound quality is the principal
> reason that vastly more people listen to digital sources
> than LPs.
Improved sound quality is what initially sold the CD. It wasn't convenience,
because finding CD titles was like hen's teeth. It wasn't cost, because both
the players and the discs were far more expensive.
> Obviously, there are many other factors involved.
When CDs initially came out, most people were impatient for change. We knew
what the failings of the LP was, and we were impatient for change.
> Additionally, most people don't seem to be
> very interested in quality sound at all.
Evidence?
> They seem to have no complaint about the quality of highly compressed
> recordings and low bit rate downloads.
Evidence?
ScottW
> In article <gdo9e501...@news7.newsguy.com>,
Not particularly relevant to the world of "high-end" nor
very accurate IMO.
Compare the sound quality of the low bitrate MP3 player
to the sound quality of the compact record players complete
with 45 changers that stack 3" high that once was the
mainstay of teen music reproduction. The low end of audio
has certainly made quantum leaps in quality for that
audience over the years.
Personally, I appreciate the prevalence of headphones
over boom boxes for teen music today.
ScottW
Jenn
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> "Jenn" <jennco...@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:gdqtj...@news7.newsguy.com
> > In article <gdo9e...@news7.newsguy.com>,
> > "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Let me reiterate the relevant facts. The added
> >> distortion inherent in the LP format or for that matter
> >> SET amplifiers is of no interest of about 99% of all
> >> music lovers. They won't spend a dime or go even just
> >> one inch out of their way to get it, as long as they
> >> can avoid it by staying in the mainstream.
> >>
> >> There do appear to be a miniscule fraction of people who
> >> actually prefer to listen to music sources and power
> >> amplifiers with bumpy frequency response and 5-10% THD.
> >> They appear to be willing to even spend amounts of money
> >> that seem vast, to simple bumpkins such as myself. God
> >> bless them!
> >
> > You seem to assert that sound quality is the principal
> > reason that vastly more people listen to digital sources
> > than LPs.
>
> Improved sound quality is what initially sold the CD.
Sure. Most people had scratchy, dirty records and played them on bad
gear. So yes, CDs sounded better. But the point is about what happens
NOW.
> It wasn't convenience,
> because finding CD titles was like hen's teeth. It wasn't cost, because both
> the players and the discs were far more expensive.
Hmmm, I don't remember the first players being much if any more
expensive than good TTs.
>
> > Obviously, there are many other factors involved.
>
> When CDs initially came out, most people were impatient for change. We knew
> what the failings of the LP was, and we were impatient for change.
>
> > Additionally, most people don't seem to be
> > very interested in quality sound at all.
>
> Evidence?
The majority of people spend more time listening to car radio/iPods with
stock earbuds than they do to quality gear.
>
> > They seem to have no complaint about the quality of highly compressed
> > recordings and low bit rate downloads.
>
> Evidence?
Sales of CDs are falling as sales of downloads are increasing.
Sonnova
(in article <6mcnd3F...@mid.individual.net>):
Uh, how about low bit-rate MP3 as evidence? That's what most people put on
their iPods and that's what Apple and many others sell on their on-line music
stores.
>
>> They seem to have no complaint about the quality of highly compressed
>> recordings and low bit rate downloads.
>
> Evidence?
They buy low bit-rate downloads (because that's mostly what's sold), and they
RIP their own at low bit rates. The name of the game today seems to be
quantity, not quality.
Jenn
ScottW <Scot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
But relevant to Arny's point.
> nor
> very accurate IMO.
Which part?
> Compare the sound quality of the low bitrate MP3 player
> to the sound quality of the compact record players complete
> with 45 changers that stack 3" high that once was the
> mainstay of teen music reproduction. The low end of audio
> has certainly made quantum leaps in quality for that
> audience over the years.
I agree. But that's beside the point. The point is low bitrate MP3 vs.
CD. Sales of the former are rising as sales of the later are falling.
It seems that for most folks, the former is OK.
C. Leeds
> Improved sound quality is what initially sold the CD....It wasn't cost, because both
> the players and the discs were far more expensive.
Don't be silly. Even the very earliest CD players were far less
expensive than the best turntable rigs of the era.
> When CDs initially came out, most people were impatient for change. We knew
> what the failings of the LP was, and we were impatient for change.
Some were impatient, many weren't. There was a recession at the time of
CD's debut, and a great many audiophiles took a "wait and see" attitude
toward the technology. There are always "early adopters" of new products.
C. Leeds
> I can see the woofers oddly dancing at a frequency quite a bit
> higher than a record warp produces.
Your woofers dance? How strange!
> I can also see the woofers dancing during silent passages between
> songs
> on some records so if it was acoustic feedback during silence, I have
> no idea how
> music would leave the stylus in the groove.
> Tone arm resonance shouldn't be so record dependent, so I am
> left to conclude that what I see is a problem cut in the vinyl.
How to account for the fact that so many others don't have this problem?
The problem is not "cut in the vinyl," and that's why things like
proper turntable isolation and record clamps are so effective.
Arny Krueger
> In article <6mcnd3F...@mid.individual.net>,
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" <jennco...@mac.com> wrote in message
>> news:gdqtj...@news7.newsguy.com
>> > In article <gdo9e...@news7.newsguy.com>,
>> > "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Let me reiterate the relevant facts. The added
>> >> distortion inherent in the LP format or for that matter
>> >> SET amplifiers is of no interest of about 99% of all
>> >> music lovers. They won't spend a dime or go even just
>> >> one inch out of their way to get it, as long as they
>> >> can avoid it by staying in the mainstream.
>> >>
>> >> There do appear to be a miniscule fraction of people who
>> >> actually prefer to listen to music sources and power
>> >> amplifiers with bumpy frequency response and 5-10% THD.
>> >> They appear to be willing to even spend amounts of money
>> >> that seem vast, to simple bumpkins such as myself. God
>> >> bless them!
>> >
>> > You seem to assert that sound quality is the principal
>> > reason that vastly more people listen to digital sources
>> > than LPs.
>> Improved sound quality is what initially sold the CD.
> Sure. Most people had scratchy, dirty records and played them on bad
> gear.
However, those of us who had new clean records and good-quality playback
equipment such as myself and many of my hifi friends, were very impressed
with the CD and were early adopters. In those days SME and Rabco tone arms,
top-of-the-line Thorens and Linn turntables, and a variety of cartridges by
Shure, ADC, and others were considered to be close to the SOTA. That's the
kind of equipment that we had. And we had our DustBusters, ZeroStats, and
record Preeners.
> So yes, CDs sounded better.
We've already seen plenty of evidence that very expensive modern LP playback
equipment performs no better than legacy equipment because the weakest link
is the media. BTW, feel free to test your vinyl playback equipment and post
it, Let's see if its better than mine!
> But the point is about what happens NOW.
What happens now is that the CD format is fully exploited by playback
equipment costing less than $100 while there has been no significant
objective change in the performance of vinyl playback equipment at any price
because it all still plays vinyl LPs. The geometry problems of 1975 have
never been solved.
>> It wasn't convenience,
>> because finding CD titles was like hen's teeth. It wasn't cost, because
>> both
>> the players and the discs were far more expensive.
> Hmmm, I don't remember the first players being much if any more
> expensive than good TTs.
I surely do, because I paid for them both. My Thorens/SME/Shure system cost
me less than my CDP-101. Many people in their 40's were not even teenagers
at the time. What can they remember if it never happened to them?
>> > Obviously, there are many other factors involved.
>> When CDs initially came out, most people were impatient for change. We
>> knew
>> what the failings of the LP was, and we were impatient for change.
>> > Additionally, most people don't seem to be
>> > very interested in quality sound at all.
>> Evidence?
> The majority of people spend more time listening to car radio/iPods with
> stock earbuds than they do to quality gear.
That's always been true, except that the gap between average and very good
was far greater in the past. Car audio can be amazingly good, even for base
systems. iPods with stock earbuds sound far better than a ca. 1983 "brown
goods" LP playback system, or a typical ca 1983 table model FM radio.
*Upgrade* IEM and speakers for portable digital players are a huge market
that never existed until lately. I don't know if you are aware of this, but
according to industry stats I've seen, the market for IEM and speaker
upgrades for portable digital players has had far more dollars in it than
all of home A/V. That's exclusive of the players themselves.
BTW, I suspect that the HDTV switchover will alter this balance for this
year and the next few years.
>> > They seem to have no complaint about the quality of highly compressed
>> > recordings and low bit rate downloads.
>> Evidence?
> Sales of CDs are falling as sales of downloads are increasing.
Proof that downloads always sound worse than CDs?
Arny Krueger
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> Improved sound quality is what initially sold the CD....It wasn't cost,
>> because both the players and the discs were far more expensive.
> Don't be silly. Even the very earliest CD players were far less expensive
> than the best turntable rigs of the era.
This would be an excluded-middle argument because the CD players in question
were all that was available and were therefore mainstream, while the most
expensive LP playback equipment was boutique equipment in the hands of very
few.
When talking about prices, I'm talking about LP playback equipment with
top-of-the line Thorens and Linn turntables, etc.
>> When CDs initially came out, most people were impatient for change. We
>> knew what the failings of the LP was, and we were impatient for change.
> Some were impatient, many weren't.
Proof? Looks like an unsupported assertion to me.
> There was a recession at the time of CD's debut,
Not in my house! ;-)
I bought a new car, an IBM PC, and the CDP 101 at that time.
> and a great many audiophiles took a "wait and see" attitude toward the
> technology.
"Many" is extremely vague. In fact the roll-out of the CD was the most
successful and quickest media format change in the history of HiFi up until
that time.
> There are always "early adopters" of new products.
There are always "late adopters" of legacy technology, which proves exactly
what?
Arny Krueger
news:gdshn...@news3.newsguy.com...
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:40:51 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article <6mcnd3F...@mid.individual.net>):
>
>> "Jenn" <jennco...@mac.com> wrote in message
>> news:gdqtj...@news7.newsguy.com
>> When CDs initially came out, most people were impatient for change. We
>> knew
>> what the failings of the LP was, and we were impatient for change.
>>
>>> Additionally, most people don't seem to be
>>> very interested in quality sound at all.
>>
>> Evidence?
>
> Uh, how about low bit-rate MP3 as evidence?
What's "Low Bitrate"?
> That's what most people put on
> their iPods and that's what Apple and many others sell on their on-line
> music
> stores.
AFAIK iTunes stock-and-trade is 128 kb AAC, which is roughly the equal of
192 kb MP3, which are generally agreed to be OK. In the day of, JJ told us
that AAC had SQ equal to a twice-bitrate MP3 at modest bitrates.
>>> They seem to have no complaint about the quality of highly compressed
>>> recordings and low bit rate downloads.
>>
>> Evidence?
> They buy low bit-rate downloads (because that's mostly what's sold),
Ever personally do a formal comparison of an 128 kb AAC to a .wav file from
the same CD source? I have. It can be tough.
Arny Krueger
> On Oct 23, 3:24 pm, Jenn <jenncondu...@mac.com> wrote:
> Compare the sound quality of the low bitrate MP3 player
> to the sound quality of the compact record players complete
> with 45 changers that stack 3" high that once was the
> mainstay of teen music reproduction.
Not to mention: many adults.
Compare the SQ of one of iTunes AAC (MP4) downloads to a "brown goods"
stereo of the 1970s and early 1980s.
Us LP elitists have to remember that the mainstream LP playback system of
the day was based on a Voice Of Music changer with a 2-pole motor, a cheap
plastic tone arm, and a crystal cartridge; playing through a single-ended
zero NFB pentode power amp that ran directly off the power line with no
power transformer and output transformers the size of walnuts. Mainstream LP
playback systems were based on speakers with no backs on their baffles. The
speakers were intentionally made with limited bass response to avoid
acoustic feedback problems because they were in the same cabinet as the
changer.
> The low end of audio
> has certainly made quantum leaps in quality for that
> audience over the years.
Agreed, and with a bullet.
> Personally, I appreciate the prevalence of headphones
> over boom boxes for teen music today.
Cuts down on noise pollution, at the very least.
just me
You forgot to include the record clamp, camel hair artist's brush to clean
the needle along with denatured alcohol, & the anti-static turntable mat :-)
One also needed to get the anti-static record sleeve for each record
being bought.
Ahhh, the routine one had to go thru to play 1 side of the record; quite
blissful after converting desired records to cd for listening...
[quoted text deleted -- deb]
Steven Sullivan
forums lately , independent of this one
here;s one on hydrogenaudio about a device that basiclly purports to re-create vinyl euphopnic
distortion. Despite the initial negative reaction, the author of the site in question
(Richard Brice) doesn't seem to be the flooby type -- he's got a technical background, has
written a respectable book on music engineering, and responds intelligently on that thread ,
to critiques and questions.
He does seem to have done measurements , too, to confirm something about LP playback that can
make certain kinds of recording (e.g., from cardioids) 'sound better'in terms of imaging, to
him, than even the master tapes, due to addition of what he calls 'beneficial distortion', a
synonym for 'euphonic distortion'.
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=6644
and here's his current site
http://classicproaudio.com/franci.htm
Btw, there's a quote on that HA thread from Brice's book that mirrors a hypothesis I have put
forward before -- and one that JJ has also hinted at on some posts on other forums --
to explain the 'vinyl sound's' fanbase, namely, that some kinds of distortion might happen to
compensate for deficiencies of some recording:
(p. 313):
"Interestingly investigations reveal that distortion mechanisms in reproduction form vinyl and
other analogue media may indeed be just those required to bring about an improvement in the
realism of the reproduced stereo image. This suggests that ther may be something in the hi-fi
cognoscenti's preference for vinyl over CD and for many recording musicians' preference for
analogue over the, apparently better, digital alternative -- though not, as they invariably
suppose, due to digital mysteriously taking something away but due to the analogue equipment
adding beneficial distortion."
Sonnova
(in article <6mdvkqF...@mid.individual.net>):
Neither do I. But I do remember that the first generation players sounded
terrible (the little 14-bit Philips/Magnavox FD-1000 @ about $US600 sounded
best) and the CDs themselves weren't any better. Playback was characterized
by screechy highs, very dry acoustics, and lack-luster bass. I remember that
I had the LP of the famous Telarc recording of the two Holst Suites for
Military Band. When the bass drum player whacked that drum-head on the LP,
the whole house shook. I was giddy with anticipation when I got the CD (one
of the first titles available). What a disappointment! That mind-blowing bass
drum had turned from the thunder of the gods into a wet fart. Thus began my
decade-long disillusionment with CD.
S888...@aol.com
You said "No, much of it is general knowledge among people who are
familiar with the technical literature of the vinyl LP,"
Clearly that is an argument by authority.
>
> > Faulty logic is
> > faulty logic even if it is used in support of a
> > legitimate position.
>
> Arguing over logic is what people do when the facts are running against them
> very strongly.
No, it is also done when people are actually using faulty logic to
argue their points. Ironically this is yet another argument that uses
faulty logic
12. Non-Sequitur In Latin this term translates to "doesn't follow".
This refers to an argument in which the conclusion does not
necessarily follow from the premises. In other words, a logical
connection is implied where none exists.
It is not only fair but also helpful in any such discussion like this
to point out the use of faulty logic when it is present.
>
> > I would be quite happy to read any
> > relevant AESJ papers on the inherent euphonic colorations
> > of vinyl.
>
> They've been cited on Usenet for at least 20 years.
That does not make them available free of cost. Between Steve and
yourself there are a few hundred dollars worth of papers being cited
and I don't even know if they are relevant. I'm simply not going to
spend money on papers that might not even be relevant. It's just not
worth it to me.
>
> > I only ask that someone demonstrate to my
> > satisfaction that the papers actually are relevant before
> > I buy them.
>
> That would appear to be a highly elusive goal.
What do you base that conclusion on? You haven't even tried to quote
any passages from any of the cited papers to show that they are
actually relevant to the subject of inherent euphonic colorations of
vinyl. Is it too dificult to find any excerpts from any of those
papers that would show quite clearly that they even relate to the
existance of inherent euphonic colorations in vinyl much less
establish their existance?
>
> > If you feel that is an unreasonable position
> > then we are at an impasse.
>
> The clause "my satisfaction" creates the impasse.
How would you know that without even posting an excerpt that
establishes the relevance of any of these papers to the subject of
inherent euphonic colorations of vinyl to your satisfaction? How do
you know my standards of satisfaction are unreasonable?
>
> Are you familiar with the concept and execution of "Academic Research"?
Yes.
>�If
> one does academic research, one does not ask anybody to demonstrate the
> validity or relevance of documents before you study them for yourself. That
> is your job!
I disagree. If you are making an argument and citing established
research by title only it is on you to establish the relevance of the
papers to the issue being argued.
>
> One ends up spending time and money on the chance that said documents might
> be valid or relevant.Often 90% or more of the documents that one reviews
> fail to be adequately valid and/or relevant.
Thank you for making my point. I'm not going to spend money on these
papers just because you claim they are relevant. If they are relevant
you can easily establish that by posting any excerpt that establishes
relevance. I do not understand why you would choose not to do so if
you really believe these papers are actually relevant. Why bother
citing them by title if you are unwilling to demonstrate their
relevance by simply posting any excerpt which would easily demonstrate
their relevance? I honestly don't understand that.
>
> > But how important is it that I
> > accept Steve Sullivan's and your assertions as fact?
>
> It is completely unimportant to me. My job is to create a forum in which
> reasonable efforts are made to expose the relevant facts. I have no
> illusions about turning communists into capitalists by the force of my
> words.
What is stopping you from simply posting excerpts from the citations
to show their relevance? How would that be an unreasonable effort?
>
> > �I accept them as reasonable theories.
>
> Then you've already admitted that the papers are relevant, because they
> contain as you say, "reasonable theories."
I did not say the papers contain "reasonable theories." I siad the
assertions you and Steve have made about the existance of inherent
euphonic colorations of vinyl seem like a reasonable theory to me. I
don't know what any of those papers you have cited say about the
existance of inherent euphonic colorations of vinyl.
S888...@aol.com
> "Jenn" <jenncondu...@mac.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6mdvkqF...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <6mcnd3Ffvub...@mid.individual.net>,
> > "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
> >> "Jenn" <jenncondu...@mac.com> wrote in message
> >>news:gdqtj...@news7.newsguy.com
> >> > In article <gdo9e501...@news7.newsguy.com>,
> >> > "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> >> > You seem to assert that sound quality is the principal
> >> > reason that vastly more people listen to digital sources
> >> > than LPs.
> >> Improved sound quality is what initially sold the CD.
> > Sure. �Most people had scratchy, dirty records and played them on bad
> > gear.
>
> However, those of us who had new clean records and good-quality playback
> equipment such as myself and many of my hifi friends, were very impressed
> with the CD and were early adopters. In those days SME and Rabco tone arms,
> top-of-the-line Thorens and Linn turntables, and a variety of cartridges by
> Shure, ADC, and others were considered to be close to the SOTA. That's the
> kind of equipment that we had. And we had our DustBusters, ZeroStats, and
> record Preeners.
You and your friends were and are entitled to your opinions but they
are hardly preresentative of any universal opinions of the audiophiles
of the day that owned or were at least exposed to SOTA or near SOTA
vinyl playback of that day. Many such audiophiles were very
dissatisfied with the sound they were hearing from CDs. Jenn's point
was that the vast majority of us, myself included embracced CD sound
back then because it was much better than our far far less than SOTA
vinyl playback equipment.
>
> > �So yes, CDs sounded better.
>
> We've already seen plenty of evidence that very expensive modern LP playback
> equipment performs no better than legacy equipment because the weakest link
> is the media.
I haven't seen any such evidence. We also have to consider the
subjective nature of the term "better." Not everyone agrees on what is
better.
> BTW, feel free to test your vinyl playback equipment and post
> it, Let's see if its better than mine!
Better by what measure?
>
> > �But the point is about what happens �NOW.
>
> What happens now is that the CD format is fully exploited by playback
> equipment costing less than $100 while there has been no significant
> objective change in the performance of vinyl playback equipment at any price
> because it all still plays vinyl LPs. �The geometry problems of 1975 have
> never been solved.
That is a faulty argument.
18. Tautology A tautology is an argument that utilizes circular
reasoning, which means that the conclusion is also its own premise.
The structure of such arguments is A=B therefore A=B, although the
premise and conclusion might be formulated differently so it is not
immediately apparent as such. For example, saying that therapeutic
touch works because it manipulates the life force is a tautology
because the definition of therapeutic touch is the alleged
manipulation (without touching) of the life force.
It also ignores the many significant incremental advances in the
technology since 1975. Advances that have made a substantial
difference in the performace of vinyl production and playback.
>
> >> It wasn't convenience,
> >> because finding CD titles was like hen's teeth. It wasn't cost, because
> >> both
> >> the players and the discs were far more expensive.
> > Hmmm, I don't remember the first players being much if any more
> > expensive than good TTs.
>
> I surely do, because I paid for them both. �My Thorens/SME/Shure system cost
> me less than my CDP-101. �Many people in their 40's were not even teenagers
> at the time. What can they remember if it never happened to them?
But at that point the CD market was actually a pretty small niche
market. CD sales did not take off until the advent of portable
systems.
ScottW
> ScottW wrote:
> > I can see the woofers oddly dancing at a frequency quite a bit
> > higher than a record warp produces.
>
> Your woofers dance? How strange!
As hypnotic as a VU meter even with no correlation
to the music.
>
> > I can also see the woofers dancing during silent passages between
> > songs
> > on some records so if it was acoustic feedback during silence, I have
> > no idea how
> > music would leave the stylus in the groove.
> > Tone arm resonance shouldn't be so record dependent, so I am
> > left to conclude that what I see is a problem cut in the vinyl.
>
> How to account for the fact that so many others don't have this problem?
Most people might not observe it for a couple of reasons.
Woofers not visible. Filters in path.
And as I noted, the open baffle design active design has more
displacement at low freq than other types.
> The problem is not "cut in the vinyl," and that's why things like
> proper turntable isolation and record clamps are so effective.
Effective isolation is easily confirmed and not an issue.
Clamping something as pliable as vinyl as far from the sylus
as a record clamp typically is...is simply futile
ScottW
ScottW
> In article <gdrfqp02...@news5.newsguy.com>,
No, Arny was talking of people spending large amounts of
money which is clearly indicative of the high end market.
How expensive an MP3 player can one buy these days?
I suppose a tube stage output MP3 player is inevitable :).
>
> > nor
> > very accurate IMO.
>
> Which part?
>
> > Compare the sound quality of the low bitrate MP3 player
> > to the sound quality of the compact record players complete
> > with 45 changers that stack 3" high that once was the
> > mainstay of teen music reproduction. The low end of audio
> > has certainly made quantum leaps in quality for that
> > audience over the years.
>
> I agree. But that's beside the point. The point is low bitrate MP3 vs.
> CD.
It's a point that isn't relevant to the high end market a portion of
which
forgoes accuracy.
Of course many people find the cost and convenience of MP3 far
outweighs
the superior performance of CD.
But they aren't part of the high end segment of the market.
ScottW
Jenn
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
I was very impressed with the CD and was an early adopter as well.
>
> > So yes, CDs sounded better.
>
> We've already seen plenty of evidence that very expensive modern LP playback
> equipment performs no better than legacy equipment because the weakest link
> is the media.
Evidence?
> BTW, feel free to test your vinyl playback equipment and post
> it, Let's see if its better than mine!
As you know, I'm technologically incompetent and therefore don't do
tests.
>
> > But the point is about what happens NOW.
>
> What happens now is that the CD format is fully exploited by playback
> equipment costing less than $100 while there has been no significant
> objective change in the performance of vinyl playback equipment at any price
> because it all still plays vinyl LPs. The geometry problems of 1975 have
> never been solved.
>
> >> It wasn't convenience,
> >> because finding CD titles was like hen's teeth. It wasn't cost, because
> >> both
> >> the players and the discs were far more expensive.
>
> > Hmmm, I don't remember the first players being much if any more
> > expensive than good TTs.
>
> I surely do, because I paid for them both. My Thorens/SME/Shure system cost
> me less than my CDP-101.
My TT at the time of the first CD players was a Denon DP-72L. It cost
more than my first generation CD player, a Sanyo.
> Many people in their 40's were not even teenagers
> at the time. What can they remember if it never happened to them?
I'm not sure of your point here.
>
>
> >> > Obviously, there are many other factors involved.
>
> >> When CDs initially came out, most people were impatient for change. We
> >> knew
> >> what the failings of the LP was, and we were impatient for change.
>
> >> > Additionally, most people don't seem to be
> >> > very interested in quality sound at all.
>
> >> Evidence?
>
> > The majority of people spend more time listening to car radio/iPods with
> > stock earbuds than they do to quality gear.
>
> That's always been true,
Of course; no argument.
> except that the gap between average and very good
> was far greater in the past.
I agree.
> Car audio can be amazingly good, even for base
> systems. iPods with stock earbuds sound far better than a ca. 1983 "brown
> goods" LP playback system, or a typical ca 1983 table model FM radio.
No argument.
>
> *Upgrade* IEM and speakers for portable digital players are a huge market
> that never existed until lately. I don't know if you are aware of this, but
> according to industry stats I've seen, the market for IEM and speaker
> upgrades for portable digital players has had far more dollars in it than
> all of home A/V. That's exclusive of the players themselves.
I wouldn't be surprised, but I miss your point.
>
> BTW, I suspect that the HDTV switchover will alter this balance for this
> year and the next few years.
>
> >> > They seem to have no complaint about the quality of highly compressed
> >> > recordings and low bit rate downloads.
>
> >> Evidence?
>
> > Sales of CDs are falling as sales of downloads are increasing.
>
> Proof that downloads always sound worse than CDs?
No, and that wasn't my assertion, as you know.
Jenn
Sonnova <son...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote:
> > Hmmm, I don't remember the first players being much if any more
> > expensive than good TTs.
>
> Neither do I. But I do remember that the first generation players sounded
> terrible (the little 14-bit Philips/Magnavox FD-1000 @ about $US600 sounded
> best) and the CDs themselves weren't any better. Playback was characterized
> by screechy highs, very dry acoustics, and lack-luster bass. I remember that
> I had the LP of the famous Telarc recording of the two Holst Suites for
> Military Band. When the bass drum player whacked that drum-head on the LP,
> the whole house shook. I was giddy with anticipation when I got the CD (one
> of the first titles available). What a disappointment! That mind-blowing bass
> drum had turned from the thunder of the gods into a wet fart. Thus began my
> decade-long disillusionment with CD.
LOL I know what you mean. I think that the sound on that Telarc was
quite good, but the LP BD left the CD BD in the dust.
I was present at the session for that recording. Such great playing.
Sonnova
(in article <6mf6s6F...@mid.individual.net>):
Lucky you!* I heard the digital "master" of the Holst played back in the
Soundstream room at an AES convention at the Waldorf Astoria in New York
several years (IIRC) before the LP came out. I went back over and over to
hear it again. The LP sounded MUCH more like that Soundstream demo than the
CD EVER did.
*didn't get yo hear that one, but I was present at the recording session for
one of the most famous jazz albums of all time: Stan Getz and Charlie Byrd's
1962 recording of "Jazz Samba" made by Verve on 35mm magnetic film.
C. Leeds
> Clamping something as pliable as vinyl as far from the sylus
> as a record clamp typically is...is simply futile
Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. LP clamping is a
very effective means of improving isolation, from the simple screw down
clamps (such as was popularized by Oracle) to the more elaborate
peripheral clamps, such as VPIs. As you yourself note:
>>> Effective isolation is easily confirmed...
Those who've experimented with these clamping systems can confirm their
effectiveness.
Sonnova
(in article <gdti4...@news5.newsguy.com>):
> "Sonnova" <son...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote in message
> news:gdshn...@news3.newsguy.com...
>> On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:40:51 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article <6mcnd3F...@mid.individual.net>):
>>
>>> "Jenn" <jennco...@mac.com> wrote in message
>>> news:gdqtj...@news7.newsguy.com
>
>>> When CDs initially came out, most people were impatient for change. We
>>> knew
>>> what the failings of the LP was, and we were impatient for change.
>>>
>>>> Additionally, most people don't seem to be
>>>> very interested in quality sound at all.
>>>
>>> Evidence?
>>
>> Uh, how about low bit-rate MP3 as evidence?
>
> What's "Low Bitrate"?
>
>> That's what most people put on
>> their iPods and that's what Apple and many others sell on their on-line
>> music
>> stores.
>
> AFAIK iTunes stock-and-trade is 128 kb AAC, which is roughly the equal of
> 192 kb MP3, which are generally agreed to be OK. In the day of, JJ told us
> that AAC had SQ equal to a twice-bitrate MP3 at modest bitrates.
It might be OK for pop music. But I listen mostly to classical and the
occasional film score. Everything that I have ever purchased and downloaded
from iTunes has been unlistenable and I have been forced to go buy the CD
after having already payed for the useless download. I'm a quick study, it
only took me two different downloads at two different times to convince me
that the first unlistenable result was not a coincidence.
>
>>>> They seem to have no complaint about the quality of highly compressed
>>>> recordings and low bit rate downloads.
>>>
>>> Evidence?
>
>> They buy low bit-rate downloads (because that's mostly what's sold),
>
> Ever personally do a formal comparison of an 128 kb AAC to a .wav file from
> the same CD source? I have. It can be tough.
I've downloaded music from iTunes and found the quality so unacceptably bad
that I ended up going out and buying the CDs. That was enough for me.
Steven Sullivan
not sure if any tubed gear is available, but Wadia has naturally
filled the pressing demand for audiophile-quality iPod docks.
http://www.musicdirect.com/product/83363
> > I agree. But that's beside the point. The point is low bitrate MP3 vs.
> > CD.
> It's a point that isn't relevant to the high end market a portion of
> which
> forgoes accuracy.
> Of course many people find the cost and convenience of MP3 far
> outweighs
> the superior performance of CD.
> But they aren't part of the high end segment of the market.
And consumers of the 'high end segment; would often find it
tough, perhaps impossible, to distinguish a good medium-bitrate MP3 from
source, in a blind test. At the very least one hopes they'd find it humbling.
Jenn
Sonnova <son...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote:
Yes, I was very lucky. I was just 4 months out of undergrad school,
teaching elementary music in Palm Springs. Fred Fennell had taken a
professional interest in me the previous summer, seeing some potential
in my work at a workshop, and he became my mentor. I miss him every
day. This was the first digital symphonic recording made in the U.S.
and I also was able to witness the third session with Fred and the
winds/percussion of the Cleveland Orchestra (music of Grainger, et al).
> I heard the digital "master" of the Holst played back in the
> Soundstream room at an AES convention at the Waldorf Astoria in New York
> several years (IIRC) before the LP came out.
The LP hit the streets 6 months after the recording date.
> I went back over and over to
> hear it again. The LP sounded MUCH more like that Soundstream demo than the
> CD EVER did.
The recording was done at 50k sampling rate. Could that have made a
difference?
>
> *didn't get yo hear that one, but I was present at the recording session for
> one of the most famous jazz albums of all time: Stan Getz and Charlie Byrd's
> 1962 recording of "Jazz Samba" made by Verve on 35mm magnetic film.
Cool. A legendary recording for sure.
Arny Krueger
> On Oct 24, 7:22?am, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>> "Jenn" <jenncondu...@mac.com> wrote in message
> You and your friends were and are entitled to your opinions but they
> are hardly representative of any universal opinions of the audiophiles
> of the day that owned or were at least exposed to SOTA or near SOTA
> vinyl playback of that day.
This claim is based on what statistical market research information
assembled by an authoritative source such as the RIAA?
> Many such audiophiles were very
> dissatisfied with the sound they were hearing from CDs.
The word "many" is meaningless.
> Jenn's point
> was that the vast majority of us, myself included embraced CD sound
> back then because it was much better than our far less than SOTA
> vinyl playback equipment.
There is nothing but anecdotes to support the idea that so-called SOTA vinyl
playback equipment has any performance advantage over the equipment that my
friends and I used. Furthermore, we had been exposed to that sort of
boutique equipment all along, and we were aware of its lack of anything but
visual performance.
>> > ?So yes, CDs sounded better.
>>
>> We've already seen plenty of evidence that very expensive modern LP
>> playback
>> equipment performs no better than legacy equipment because the weakest
>> link
>> is the media.
> I haven't seen any such evidence.
Sure you have, and you dismissed it, out of hand.
>We also have to consider the
> subjective nature of the term "better." Not everyone agrees on what is
> better.
To be better something has to be different, and there is no reliable
evidence that boutique vinyl playback gear performs any different from what
we had, only anecdotes.
>> BTW, feel free to test your vinyl playback equipment and post
>> it, Let's see if its better than mine!
> Better by what measure?
Sound quality based on reliable comparisons with the source material.
>> > ?But the point is about what happens ?NOW.
>>
>> What happens now is that the CD format is fully exploited by playback
>> equipment costing less than $100 while there has been no significant
>> objective change in the performance of vinyl playback equipment at any
>> price
>> because it all still plays vinyl LPs. ?The geometry problems of 1975 have
>> never been solved.
> That is a faulty argument.
> 18. Tautology A tautology is an argument that utilizes circular
> reasoning, which means that the conclusion is also its own premise.
The statement "The geometry problems of 1975 have
never been solved." is not a tautology.
It is however a statement that you are unprepared to evaluate, because by
your own admission, you have no idea what the geometry problems of 1975
were. Please correct me if I am wrong.
S888...@aol.com
> <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:gdtj2...@news5.newsguy.com...
> > On Oct 24, 7:22?am, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> >> "Jenn" <jenncondu...@mac.com> wrote in message
> > You and your friends were and are entitled to your opinions but they
> > are hardly representative of any universal opinions of the audiophiles
> > of the day that owned or were at least exposed to SOTA or near SOTA
> > vinyl playback of that day.
>
> This claim is based on what statistical market research information
> assembled by an authoritative source such as the RIAA?
Just as the stated opinions by you on behalf of your friends, it is
not based on any such research. To the best of my knowledge, the RIAA
never researched the opinions of audiophiles who owned or were exposed
to SOTA or near SOTA vinyl playback. You recalled the opinions of your
friends of the day. I simply pointed out that your anecdote did not
represent a universal opinion at that time. I base this on a clear
memory of converstaions with other aduiophiles back then along with a
number of reviews and letters to the editors of the underground audio
publications written back then. Are you going to take the position
that the the opinions you related to us in your anecdote about your
friends' opinions on CD sound v. vinyl sound back in the early 80s was
a univversal opinion among audiophiles who were exposed in one way or
another to SOTA or near SOTA vinyl playback? If you really wish to
assert that I will find testimonials of audiophiles that did have a
very different opinion.
>
> > Many such audiophiles were very
> > dissatisfied with the sound they were hearing from CDs.
>
(Semantic argument snipped)
>
> > Jenn's point
> > was that the vast majority of us, myself included embraced CD sound
> > back then because it was much better than our far less than SOTA
> > vinyl playback equipment.
>
> There is nothing but anecdotes to support the idea that so-called SOTA vinyl
> playback equipment has any performance advantage over the equipment that my
> friends and I used.
Where are the measurements of SOTA vinyl playback to support this
assertion? I have yet to see any such measurements performed on the
Rockport Sirius III or the Continuum Caliburn? Without such
measurments any assertion that these rigs have the same levels of
audible distortion as the rigs your friends and you used is also quite
anecdotal.
>Furthermore, we had been exposed to that sort of
> boutique equipment all along, and we were aware of its lack of anything but
> visual performance.
You and your friends are entitled to their subjective opinions.
>
> >> > ?So yes, CDs sounded better.
>
> >> We've already seen plenty of evidence that very expensive modern LP
> >> playback
> >> equipment performs no better than legacy equipment because the weakest
> >> link
> >> is the media.
> > I haven't seen any such evidence.
>
> Sure you have, and you dismissed it, out of hand.
No. I have not seen any evidence to support the assertion that
"expensive modern LP equipment performs no better than legacy
equipment." If you have some results from some independent blind
listening comparisons that support this assertion I'd be happy to look
at them. Of course the big problem here is the wide variety of
"expensive modern LP playback equipment" that is out there. I am sure
given the wide variety one may find something that they don't like or
something that is an expensive bad idea brought to market. I would
never assert that *all* expensive gear is actually good by any
measure. So one would have to be very careful to choose a wide enough
variety of modern turntable rigs to really represent today's state of
the art. Of course one also has to ask what you mean by "legacy"
equipment as well. One could argue that The Continuum Caliburn is
"legacy equipment" since some of the technology developed in the
design of that rig has trickled down into Continuum's second turntable
design.
>
> >We also have to consider the
> > subjective nature of the term "better." Not everyone agrees on what is
> > better.
>
> To be better something has to be different, and there is no reliable
> evidence that boutique vinyl playback gear performs any different from what
> we had, only anecdotes.
Are you sure about that?
>
> >> BTW, feel free to test your vinyl playback equipment and post
> >> it, Let's see if its better than mine!
> > Better by what measure?
>
> Sound quality based on reliable comparisons with the source material.
I have done many single blind listening tests of various turntables,
pickup arms and cartridges. Among those comparisons were some that
involed various incarnations of various Regas including the Rega 2. By
my subjective measure under blind conditions the Regas did not fare
well. YMMV
>
> >> > ?But the point is about what happens ?NOW.
>
> >> What happens now is that the CD format is fully exploited by playback
> >> equipment costing less than $100 while there has been no significant
> >> objective change in the performance of vinyl playback equipment at any
> >> price
> >> because it all still plays vinyl LPs. ?The geometry problems of 1975 have
> >> never been solved.
> > That is a faulty argument.
> > 18. Tautology A tautology is an argument that utilizes circular
> > reasoning, which means that the conclusion is also its own premise.
>
> The statement �"The geometry problems of 1975 have
> �never been solved." is not a tautology.
You are correct. The argument that "there has been no significant
objective change in the performance of vinyl playback equipment at any
price because it all still plays vinyl LPs." is a tautology. That was
my point.
>
> It is however a statement that you are unprepared to evaluate, because by
> your own admission, you have no idea what the geometry problems of 1975
> were. Please correct me if I am wrong.
I believe you are wrong. I have made no such admission that I know of.
The geometry of vinyl cutting and playback is pretty well known and
straight forward. If you think there is any aspect of it that you
believe I don't understand please fill me in. I am happy to learn
something more about the geometry of vinyl playback.
S888...@aol.com
Clamps don't improve isolation. They do couple the records to the
vinyl which achieves two things depending on the nature of the
platter. 1. They improve the stiffness of the vinyl 2. they allow for
better damping of the vinyl. Clamping a record to the platter allows
the record to literally take on more of the characteristics of that
platter. If you have a stiff, well damped platter, those
characteristics will better transcribe to the vinyl when better
coupled to the platter. The thing is isolation and damping achieve
similar results, the reduction of added vibration to the system.
Arny Krueger
> Clamps don't improve isolation. They do couple the records to the
> vinyl which achieves two things depending on the nature of the
> platter. 1. They improve the stiffness of the vinyl
Must not be what you mean, because you can't change the stiffness of vinyl
without changing the vinyl itself.
What a clamp might do is mechanically couple the vinyl to something that is
stiffer than it is, which would make the vinyl part of something that is
stiffer. Stiffening would raise the resonance of the vinyl sheet, which
would probably move it into a frequency range where its vibration would be
more audible. So, just because the LP is stiffened, is not necessarily an
advantage.
> 2. they allow for better damping of the vinyl.
This would only happen if the vinyl were put into more intimate contact with
something that is itself dampening. The degree of clamping would need to be
optimized, not too little, not too much. If the record is clamped to the
damper too tightly, then the damping due to sliding between the two elements
would be lost.
> Clamping a record to the platter allows
> the record to literally take on more of the characteristics of that
> platter.
If that is what you mean by improving the stiffness of the vinyl, then yes
this can happen.
> If you have a stiff, well damped platter, those
> characteristics will better transcribe to the vinyl when better
> coupled to the platter.
If this vibration of the LP has no audible effects, then dampening this
vibration will have no audible effects.
When measuring the frequency response and noise from a LP, these vibrations
should have some measurable effects. I can't remember seeing any, and see no
signs of them in the published test results we have discussed. Note that
these measurements *do* pick up vibrations that are very tiny. Many of the
vibrations that we *can* measure are masked by other sound sources including
the music that is recorded on the LP.
> The thing is isolation and damping achieve
> similar results, the reduction of added vibration to the system.
I'm surprised that clamps don't help flatten records out. One of the rather
obvious problems of the LP is jitter or FM distortion due to the LP not
being perfectly flat.
ScottW
>> ScottW wrote:
>> > Clamping something as pliable as vinyl as far from the sylus
>> > as a record clamp typically is...is simply futile
>>
>> Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. LP clamping is a
>> very effective means of improving isolation, from the simple screw down
>> clamps (such as was popularized by Oracle) to the more elaborate
>> peripheral clamps, such as VPIs. As you yourself note:
>>
>>
>> Those who've experimented with these clamping systems can confirm their
>> effectiveness.
>
> Clamps don't improve isolation.
Exactly, If anything it must diminish it by improving coupling to
the platter. This may change the resonance of the system
but not at the distance and with a material as compliant
as vinyl.
> They do couple the records to the
> vinyl which achieves two things depending on the nature of the
> platter. 1. They improve the stiffness of the vinyl
Only if you sandwiched the entire record. Vinyl is pretty
compliant and as such wont conduct vibration or force over any
distance in the vertical axis or thinnest dimension of the record.
A clamp at the center won't improve coupling of
the record to the platter inches away.
ScottW
S888...@aol.com
> <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:ge84j...@news6.newsguy.com...
> > Clamps don't improve isolation. They do couple the records to the
> > vinyl which achieves two things depending on the nature of the
> > platter. 1. They improve the stiffness of the vinyl
>
> Must not be what you mean, because you can't change the stiffness of vinyl
> without changing the vinyl itself.
No it is exactly what I mean. Hold a vinyl record in the air and try
to flex it. It is quite easy. Now place it against a platter and
couple it with a record clamp. It won't flex in the direction of the
platter. so it is effectively stiffer.
>
> What a clamp might do is mechanically couple the vinyl to something that is
> stiffer than it is, which would make the vinyl part of something that is
> stiffer. �Stiffening would raise the resonance of the vinyl sheet, which
> would probably move it into a frequency range where its vibration would be
> more audible. So, just because the LP is stiffened, is not necessarily an
> advantage.
That is true. That is why platter design is a lot more complicated
than just making it out of the stiffest material out there. Platters
and mats need to be damped and need to be carefully designed with
careful choice of materials to insure complimentary internal resonant
frequencies. You don't want a platter that rings like a bell. Well I
don't. There are some designs out there with some pretty stiff
undamped light weight platters. I tend to find these designs to be
noticably unpleasantly colored. You will find this a common design
feature in the Rega line of turntables. Sorry Arny. Nothing personal.
But I don't like the Regas.
>
> > 2. they allow for better damping of the vinyl.
>
> This would only happen if the vinyl were put into more intimate contact with
> something that is itself dampening. The degree of clamping would need to be
> optimized, not too little, not too much. If the record is clamped to the
> damper too tightly, then the damping due to sliding between the two elements
> would be lost.
You are absolutely right here. that is why we often find the most
successful designs incorperate clamps that are specifically designed
to go with the platter.
>
> > Clamping a record to the platter allows
> > the record to literally take on more of the characteristics of that
> > platter.
>
> If that is what you mean by improving the stiffness of the vinyl, then yes
> this can happen.
Yes, that is what I meant.
>
> > �If you have a stiff, well damped platter, those
> > characteristics will better transcribe to the vinyl when better
> > coupled to the platter.
>
> If this vibration of the LP has no audible effects, then dampening this
> vibration will have no audible effects.
That is true but we can't get around the fact that the stylus is
riding the vinyl. Clealry any added vibration to the vinyl will be fed
directly into the stylus. Also the stylus is putting energy directly
into the vinyl. If the vinyl is flexing that is very bad. If it is
taking that energy that is being directly applied to it and reflecting
it back because the vinyl is coupled to a stiff undamped platter that
rings like a bell, you have yet another significant coloration.
turntable design is a pretty complicated endevour.
>
> When measuring the frequency response and noise from a LP, these vibrations
> should have some measurable effects. I can't remember seeing any, and see no
> signs of them in the published test results we have discussed. Note that
> these measurements *do* pick up vibrations that are very tiny. Many of the
> vibrations that we *can* measure are masked by other sound sources including
> the music that is recorded on the LP.
How do determine what is causing what when you look at your
measurements?
>
> > The thing is isolation and damping achieve
> > similar results, the reduction of added vibration to the system.
>
> I'm surprised that clamps don't help flatten records out. One of the rather
> obvious problems of the LP is jitter or FM distortion due to the LP not
> being perfectly flat.
Thank you for adding that. Clamps also help flatten out records.
Mike Gilmour
I'd agree to an extent. Since this thread about clamps started I've run some
listening tests comparing both vacuum Vs spindle clamping. On my vacuum
clamp SOTA turntable, it is trivially easy to see the affects by switching
out vacuum pump. With the pump on there is a discernibly lower noise floor
i.e a 'blacker' background less surface noise, imaging and general focus
improves. Without vacuum but using the SOTA centre 'pull down' clamp the
benefits are not as good but better than no clamp at all. I don't have the
periphery clamping ring so I can't comment about that one. I've also heard
the Basis vacuum turntable that exhibited similiar results.
This suggest to me that centre clamping athough good is not as successful as
vacuum clamping.
Just my 2p's worth...
Mike
S888...@aol.com
> <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:ge84j...@news6.newsguy.com...
>
> - Show quoted text -
It will if the platter and clamp have been designed to apply leverage
beyond the edge of the clamp.
Arny Krueger
>Vinyl is pretty
> compliant and as such wont conduct vibration or force over any
> distance in the vertical axis or thinnest dimension of the record.
The vinyl used to make LPs also has quite a bit of inherent damping. Pling
the edge of an LP with your finger. It doesn't ring, it sort of goes thwock.
> A clamp at the center won't improve coupling of
> the record to the platter inches away.
Agreed. The most logical way to damp a LP is to put as much of its surface
in contact with a damping material like felt or perhaps Sorbothane.
Thing is, it is very hard to measure potentially audible resonances on a LP
that is supported even minimally. The inherent damping of soft vinyl seems
to really work.
Methinks that this whole LP damping thing is just more pseudoscience in the
service of marketing expensive turntables and record mats.
S888...@aol.com
> "ScottW" <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ge8ki...@news2.newsguy.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:ge84j...@news6.newsguy.com...
>
> - Show quoted text -
As a former owner of a SOTA Star I have to say that test is a little
unfair. Without the vacuum engaged the rubber lip on the platter
designed to create the vacuum seal will push the vinyl away from the
platter even with the clamp. Turntables with no vacuum hold down will
not have the same unique problem.
Arny Krueger
news:6mq7lpF...@mid.individual.net...
> On Oct 28, 5:17�pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>> <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:ge84j...@news6.newsguy.com...
>> > Clamps don't improve isolation. They do couple the records to the
>> > vinyl which achieves two things depending on the nature of the
>> > platter. 1. They improve the stiffness of the vinyl
>>
>> Must not be what you mean, because you can't change the stiffness of
>> vinyl
>> without changing the vinyl itself.
> No it is exactly what I mean. Hold a vinyl record in the air and try
> to flex it. It is quite easy. Now place it against a platter and
> couple it with a record clamp. It won't flex in the direction of the
> platter. so it is effectively stiffer.
However, this is not a real-world example because we *never* hold a vinyl
record in the air and try
to play it. Well, maybe some crazed enthusiast has tried it, but I don't
know about it! ;-)
>> What a clamp might do is mechanically couple the vinyl to something that
>> is
>> stiffer than it is, which would make the vinyl part of something that is
>> stiffer. �Stiffening would raise the resonance of the vinyl sheet,
>> which
>> would probably move it into a frequency range where its vibration would
>> be
>> more audible. So, just because the LP is stiffened, is not necessarily an
>> advantage.
> That is true. That is why platter design is a lot more complicated
> than just making it out of the stiffest material out there.
Technical measurements seem to show that platter material is not all that
important - many things will work.
> Platters
> and mats need to be damped and need to be carefully designed with
> careful choice of materials to insure complimentary internal resonant
> frequencies. You don't want a platter that rings like a bell.
Actually, I've had several platters that rang pretty nicely if I held them
in the air. Some were made out of steel sheet and also die cast aluminum or
similar metal.
> Well I
> don't. There are some designs out there with some pretty stiff
> undamped light weight platters. I tend to find these designs to be
> noticeably unpleasantly colored. You will find this a common design
> feature in the Rega line of turntables. Sorry Arny. Nothing personal.
> But I don't like the Regas.
I posted both a frequency sweep (well known means for exciting resonances)
and a dynamic range test of a Rega at www.pcavtech.com . See any resonances
in actual use?
>> > 2. they allow for better damping of the vinyl.
>>
>> This would only happen if the vinyl were put into more intimate contact
>> with
>> something that is itself dampening. The degree of clamping would need to
>> be
>> optimized, not too little, not too much. If the record is clamped to the
>> damper too tightly, then the damping due to sliding between the two
>> elements
>> would be lost.
> You are absolutely right here. that is why we often find the most
> successful designs incorporate clamps that are specifically designed
> to go with the platter.
"Going with the platter" does not ensure what I am talking about. However,
there's plenty of evidence that exotic matched and damped platters are
solutions looking for problems.
> > �If you have a stiff, well damped platter, those
>> > characteristics will better transcribe to the vinyl when better
>> > coupled to the platter.
>>
>> If this vibration of the LP has no audible effects, then dampening this
>> vibration will have no audible effects.
> That is true but we can't get around the fact that the stylus is
> riding the vinyl.
Actual tests would show any problems that were audible.
> Clealry any added vibration to the vinyl will be fed
> directly into the stylus.
Only if it happens to an audible degree. Ever wonder why exotic LP playback
equipment provide zero technical tests for their products, and Stereophile
has AFAIK only done one? Technical testing would not show a real-world
advantage for a lot of expensive tool work and materials. It's audio
jewelry, plain and simple.
> Also the stylus is putting energy directly
> into the vinyl. If the vinyl is flexing that is very bad. If it is
> taking that energy that is being directly applied to it and reflecting
> it back because the vinyl is coupled to a stiff undamped platter that
> rings like a bell, you have yet another significant coloration.
> turntable design is a pretty complicated endeavor.
Actually, there's nothing at all inherently complicated about turntable
design. Nothing new of technical significance has been seen in decades.
>> When measuring the frequency response and noise from a LP, these
>> vibrations
>> should have some measurable effects. I can't remember seeing any, and see
>> no
>> signs of them in the published test results we have discussed. Note that
>> these measurements *do* pick up vibrations that are very tiny. Many of
>> the
>> vibrations that we *can* measure are masked by other sound sources
>> including
>> the music that is recorded on the LP.
> How do determine what is causing what when you look at your
> measurements?
Well, we know what was put on the test record. The input to the cutting
lathe is reported by the engineer who made the recording. The contents of
the recorded disk can be determined using a microscope. We're hoping that
when we play the test record, the input to the cutting lathe is what comes
back. If something is missing or else shows up, then that's not good.
Vis-a-vis these alleged vibration problems, that can't be detected: When
evidence of a problem is so universally absent, there is no causality to be
determined. I can explain why it doesn't happen. I can't explain why it
should happen.
>> > The thing is isolation and damping achieve
>> > similar results, the reduction of added vibration to the system.
>>
>> I'm surprised that clamps don't help flatten records out. One of the
>> rather
>> obvious problems of the LP is jitter or FM distortion due to the LP not
>> being perfectly flat.
> Thank you for adding that. Clamps also help flatten out records.
But, they only help somewhat - they are not a solution.
It is ironic that so much is made of jitter in digital equipment that is 100
dB down or more, and so little is made of similar jitter from LPs that is
only 30 to 50 dB down. Another Mulligan, I think. :-(
Arny Krueger
news:6mr58mF...@mid.individual.net...
> I'd agree to an extent. Since this thread about clamps started I've run
> some
> listening tests comparing both vacuum Vs spindle clamping. On my vacuum
> clamp SOTA turntable, it is trivially easy to see the affects by switching
> out vacuum pump. With the pump on there is a discernibly lower noise floor
> i.e a 'blacker' background less surface noise, imaging and general focus
> improves.
This should no doubt show up in technical testing.
It seems like a profound mechanical change like this would be pretty obvious
in ordinary testing.
I've never seen the results of any unbiased testing, subjective or test
equipment based, of this hypothesis.
Mike Gilmour
> On Oct 29, 6:03?am, "Mike Gilmour" <gilmourm...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> "ScottW" <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:ge8ki...@news2.newsguy.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote in
>> > messagenews:ge84j...@news6.newsguy.com...
>> >> On Oct 25, 7:28?am, "C. Leeds" <cleeds...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>> ScottW wrote:
>> >>> > Clamping something as pliable as vinyl as far from the sylus
>> >>> > as a record clamp typically is...is simply futile
>>
>> >>> Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. LP clamping is a
>> >>> very effective means of improving isolation, from the simple screw
>> >>> down
>> >>> clamps (such as was popularized by Oracle) to the more elaborate
>> >>> peripheral clamps, such as VPIs. As you yourself note:
>>
>> >>> >>> ?Effective isolation is easily confirmed...
>>
>> >>> Those who've experimented with these clamping systems can confirm
>> >>> their
>> >>> effectiveness.
>>
>> >> Clamps don't improve isolation.
>>
>> > Exactly, If anything it must diminish it by improving coupling to
>> > but not at the distance and with a material as compliant
>> > as vinyl.
>>
>> >> They do couple the records to the
>> >> vinyl which achieves two things depending on the nature of the
>> >> platter. 1. They improve the stiffness of the vinyl
>>
>> > Only if you sandwiched the entire record. Vinyl is pretty
>> > compliant and as such wont conduct vibration or force over any
>> > distance in the vertical axis or thinnest dimension of the record.
Fair comment, agreed it was not a fair test. This evening I've tried the
MRM Source turntable with / without clamp - preferred with clamp but the
results were less marked than with the SOTA, probably for the very reason
you stated.