People who hear differences in cables and not distortion in vinyl
Andrew Thibault
Dave <_jt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3694563e...@news.elnet.com...
>I find it amusing how so many people claim to hear differences in
>cables, CD players, etc but can't hear distortion in vinyl? I don't
>care how expensive your analog rig is or how new or clean your records
>are, their is noise and distortion. Anyone who has ever claimed to
>hear a difference between amps, cables, CD players, or even speakers
>but can't hear distortion coming from a turn table is an
>embarrassment.
What I find amazing is your continued insistence on being an ignorant
asshole. You've never heard a top-class turntable, yet you are arrogant
enough to tell vinyl lovers what we do and do not hear.
Come back when you can afford to buy a clue, you dickless fuck.
teebo
****************************************
My observations would be paranoia
only if they were not true.
- Howard Ferstler
Dave
wrote:
>Howard Ferstler wrote (about LP):
>
>> Even the good ones have surface noise, surface-generated flutter, inner groove
>> distortion, etc.
>
>Good LPs don't suffer these audible problems. Why do you
>insist on making these assertions regarding playback
>equipment about which you have no experience? Howard - when
>you write a review for one of your magazines or little books
>- do actually have experience with the equipment, or do you
>just surmise what how it performs as you do with LP?
Peter Irwin
> On Mon, 04 Jan 1999 16:10:30 -0500, Curtis Leeds <cle...@idt.net>
> wrote:
>>Howard Ferstler wrote (about LP):
>>
>>> Even the good ones have surface noise, surface-generated flutter,
inner groove
>>> distortion, etc.
>>
>>Good LPs don't suffer these audible problems. Why do you
>>insist on making these assertions regarding playback
>>equipment about which you have no experience? Howard - when
>>you write a review for one of your magazines or little books
>>- do actually have experience with the equipment, or do you
>>just surmise what how it performs as you do with LP?
>>
> I find it amusing how so many people claim to hear differences in
> cables, CD players, etc but can't hear distortion in vinyl?
It depends upon what you mean. If you built a distortion generator
to simulate an LP playback transfer characteristic, it would
be fairly easy to spot it being switched in or out, but it would
be harder to guess which one is which.
I think that if you think you can spot the distortion from
good LP playback without doing a difference test with
short switchover times - you are probably fooling yourself.
Peter.
-----
pir...@ktb.net
Zeke Sandman
teeb...@frontiernet.net says...
>>care how expensive your analog rig is or how new or clean your records
>>are, their is noise and distortion. Anyone who has ever claimed to
>>hear a difference between amps, cables, CD players, or even speakers
>>but can't hear distortion coming from a turn table is an
>>embarrassment.
>
>asshole. You've never heard a top-class turntable, yet you are arrogant
>enough to tell vinyl lovers what we do and do not hear.
>
>Come back when you can afford to buy a clue, you dickless fuck.
I'm sorry--Is this the NRA newsgroup? How virile you must be!
Sean
cut glass, I would have to assume that ANY jitter that was
transferred to the tonearm would cause the diamond stylus to
permanently mar the much softer vinyl. This would produce some
form of noise or distortion for all future playings. Digital is
far from perfect and I do think that it still has a long way to
go to match a quality analogue system in most respects, but
analogue still has it's downfalls also. It's a shame that others
can't admit this. Sean
P.S. Pay no attention to the little people that can't find any
other way to vent their frustrations and try to belittle you and
your opinions. Your way above them and talking over the top of
their head. You'll be fine as long as you realize this and don't
look down upon them.
>
Andrew Thibault wrote in message
<76rnj8$7f8$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>...
>
>Dave <_jt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:3694563e...@news.elnet.com...
>
>>I find it amusing how so many people claim to hear differences
in
>>cables, CD players, etc but can't hear distortion in vinyl? I
don't
>>care how expensive your analog rig is or how new or clean your
records
>>are, their is noise and distortion. Anyone who has ever
claimed to
>>hear a difference between amps, cables, CD players, or even
speakers
>>but can't hear distortion coming from a turn table is an
>>embarrassment.
>
>What I find amazing is your continued insistence on being an
ignorant
>asshole. You've never heard a top-class turntable, yet you are
arrogant
>enough to tell vinyl lovers what we do and do not hear.
>
>Come back when you can afford to buy a clue, you dickless fuck.
>
Stewart Pinkerton
>Dave <_jt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:3694563e...@news.elnet.com...
>
>>I find it amusing how so many people claim to hear differences in
>>cables, CD players, etc but can't hear distortion in vinyl? I don't
>>care how expensive your analog rig is or how new or clean your records
>>are, their is noise and distortion. Anyone who has ever claimed to
>>hear a difference between amps, cables, CD players, or even speakers
>>but can't hear distortion coming from a turn table is an
>>embarrassment.
>
>What I find amazing is your continued insistence on being an ignorant
>asshole. You've never heard a top-class turntable, yet you are arrogant
>enough to tell vinyl lovers what we do and do not hear.
>
>Come back when you can afford to buy a clue, you dickless fuck.
However, he *does* make a pretty good point, no? :-)
p.s. I own a decent vinyl rig and I have heard many 'top-class' rigs,
including a couple of intensive sessions with the ultimate, the
Rockport Sirius III/Insider. The audible differences among them are
very obvious, hence all but one are by definition imperfect. This is
much less obvious among CD players, amps and especially cables, so
Dave's point *is* well made, even if not from his own experience.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
Arny Krüger
Dave <_jt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message <3694563e...@news.elnet.com>...
>On Mon, 04 Jan 1999 16:10:30 -0500, Curtis Leeds <cle...@idt.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Howard Ferstler wrote (about LP):
>>
>>> Even the good ones have surface noise, surface-generated flutter, inner
groove
>>> distortion, etc.
>>
>>Good LPs don't suffer these audible problems.
In my dreams! They are there in accordance with the laws of physics.
>> Why do you
>>insist on making these assertions regarding playback
>>equipment about which you have no experience?
One needs little experience with specific rivers in the Himalayas to know that
water goes down hill.
>I find it amusing how so many people claim to hear differences in
>cables, CD players, etc but can't hear distortion in vinyl?
That's because ideology clouds their hearing.
>I don't care how expensive your analog rig is or how new or clean your
records
>are, their is noise and distortion.
Readily predictable, measurable and audible. In fact the noise in vinyl is so
great that it used to make measuring the distortion a fair amount of work.
>Anyone who has ever claimed to
>hear a difference between amps, cables, CD players, or even speakers
>but can't hear distortion coming from a turn table is an
>embarrassment.
Can we say "hysteria"? ;-)
Arny Krüger
>
>>I find it amusing how so many people claim to hear differences in
>>care how expensive your analog rig is or how new or clean your records
>>hear a difference between amps, cables, CD players, or even speakers
>>but can't hear distortion coming from a turn table is an
>>embarrassment.
>
asshole.
Here we go again. The religious subjectivist utters a prayer to his god - in
profanity. Does that mean that the god of the religious subjectivist is
profane?
>You've never heard a top-class turntable,
Turntables are not the limitation to what vinyl can do, technically. It's the
technology of vinyl that limits it.
>yet you are arrogant enough to tell vinyl lovers what we do and do not hear.
No, you tell us what you don't hear - all the well-known distortions and
noises that are ineherent in the vinyl process.
It all starts with the fact that cutters and styli can't possibly follow the
same path in the groove and works down from there.
If you were well-equipped enough, and smart enough, I'd ask you to send me a
CD-R of your vinyl setup playing a test record, and show you how bad vinyl is
with my FFT. But you aren't, I don't think.
Trotsky
> "Andrew Thibault" <teeb...@frontiernet.net> writes:
>
> >Dave <_jt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:3694563e...@news.elnet.com...
> >
> >>I find it amusing how so many people claim to hear differences in
> >>cables, CD players, etc but can't hear distortion in vinyl? I don't
> >>care how expensive your analog rig is or how new or clean your records
> >>are, their is noise and distortion. Anyone who has ever claimed to
> >>hear a difference between amps, cables, CD players, or even speakers
> >>but can't hear distortion coming from a turn table is an
> >>embarrassment.
> >
> >What I find amazing is your continued insistence on being an ignorant
> >asshole. You've never heard a top-class turntable, yet you are arrogant
> >enough to tell vinyl lovers what we do and do not hear.
> >
> >Come back when you can afford to buy a clue, you dickless fuck.
>
> However, he *does* make a pretty good point, no? :-)
Yeah, you're right, Stew--"Dave" the dickhead sock puppet makes an
excellent point, in Krooglish. He makes a statement and ends it in a
question mark. I'm sure that works for you.
As for hearing "distortion" in vinyl--where's your body of scientific
evidence? What kind of a "scientist" are you--the grade school kind? "I
call I can state opinions as facts and you can't. Nyah nyah nyah." You're
a joke. Put on your lab coat and get some facts. Present them before the
AES. Get back to us if they don't laugh you out of town.
>
> p.s. I own a decent vinyl rig and I have heard many 'top-class' rigs,
> including a couple of intensive sessions with the ultimate, the
> Rockport Sirius III/Insider. The audible differences among them are
> very obvious, hence all but one are by definition imperfect. This is
> much less obvious among CD players, amps and especially cables, so
> Dave's point *is* well made, even if not from his own experience.
>
>
So your opinion is for shit, what else is new?
--
Every time you think you've paid the price
Seems you've always got to pay it twice
Every time you think you're near the end
You turn around and find another ticket
Eric Clapton--"Another Ticket" p. 1981
Greg M. Singh
gsi...@mc.net
Trotsky
<ar...@flash.net> wrote:
> Andrew Thibault wrote in message
> <76rnj8$7f8$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>...
> >
> >Dave <_jt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:3694563e...@news.elnet.com...
> >
> >>I find it amusing how so many people claim to hear differences in
> >>cables, CD players, etc but can't hear distortion in vinyl? I don't
> >>care how expensive your analog rig is or how new or clean your records
> >>are, their is noise and distortion. Anyone who has ever claimed to
> >>hear a difference between amps, cables, CD players, or even speakers
> >>but can't hear distortion coming from a turn table is an
> >>embarrassment.
> >
> >What I find amazing is your continued insistence on being an ignorant
> asshole.
>
> Here we go again. The religious subjectivist utters a prayer to his god - in
> profanity. Does that mean that the god of the religious subjectivist is
> profane?
>
> >You've never heard a top-class turntable,
>
> Turntables are not the limitation to what vinyl can do, technically. It's the
> technology of vinyl that limits it.
>
> >yet you are arrogant enough to tell vinyl lovers what we do and do not hear.
>
> No, you tell us what you don't hear - all the well-known distortions and
> noises that are ineherent in the vinyl process.
>
> It all starts with the fact that cutters and styli can't possibly follow the
> same path in the groove and works down from there.
>
> If you were well-equipped enough, and smart enough, I'd ask you to send me a
> CD-R of your vinyl setup playing a test record, and show you how bad vinyl is
> with my FFT. But you aren't, I don't think.
>
Yep, the "scientists" definitely have an advantage on this one--I for one
can't look at a spec sheet and get an erection. Apparently you can, Arny.
How much longer do we have to put up with your garbage: "my personal
preference is more technologically accurate than your personal preference."
Yep, that does it for me. I really feel ashamed now for enjoying a good
record. Maybe if I'm really lucky I will have a kid that will croak so I
can walk a mile in your shoes.
Arny Krüger
Trotsky wrote in message ...
>
>Yep, the "scientists" definitely have an advantage on this one--I for one
>can't look at a spec sheet and get an erection. Apparently you can, Arny.
False claim. In another post I commented on the apparent inabiltiy of
religious subjectivists like you and "The Resistance" to express an opinion
without discending into the mire. Thanks for again proving my point!
>How much longer do we have to put up with your garbage: "my personal
>preference is more technologically accurate than your personal preference."
What's at stake here is not personal preference for equipment, its personal
preference for science and technology. I prefer science and technology when it
comes to understanding and improving the reproduction of sound. Science and
technology is how the whole business of reproducing sound started with Bell
and Edison and the other less-well-known inventors of the art. Science and
technology has been behind every major advance in it.
>Yep, that does it for me. I really feel ashamed now for enjoying a good
record.
Why?
>Maybe if I'm really lucky I will have a kid that will croak so I can walk a
mile in your shoes.
You'd need to have a life, too. With your ideology, it can't happen. Sad.
Arny Krüger
Trotsky wrote in message ...
>
>Yeah, you're right, Stew--"Dave" the dickhead sock puppet makes an
>excellent point, in Krooglish. He makes a statement and ends it in a
>question mark. I'm sure that works for you.
>
>As for hearing "distortion" in vinyl--where's your body of scientific
>evidence? What kind of a "scientist" are you--the grade school kind? "I
>call I can state opinions as facts and you can't. Nyah nyah nyah." You're
>a joke. Put on your lab coat and get some facts. Present them before the
>AES. Get back to us if they don't laugh you out of town.
>
>
>So your opinion is for shit, what else is new?
>
Nothing like cool, reasoned rhetoric. ;-)
But, from the religious subjectivists, this is what you get!
Andrew Thibault
Stewart Pinkerton <pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3691bc5e...@news.dircon.co.uk...
>"Andrew Thibault" <teeb...@frontiernet.net> writes:
>
>>Dave <_jt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:3694563e...@news.elnet.com...
>>
>>>I find it amusing how so many people claim to hear differences in
>>>cables, CD players, etc but can't hear distortion in vinyl? I don't
>>>care how expensive your analog rig is or how new or clean your records
>>>are, their is noise and distortion. Anyone who has ever claimed to
>>>hear a difference between amps, cables, CD players, or even speakers
>>>but can't hear distortion coming from a turn table is an
>>>embarrassment.
>>
>>What I find amazing is your continued insistence on being an ignorant
>>enough to tell vinyl lovers what we do and do not hear.
>>
>
>However, he *does* make a pretty good point, no? :-)
No, not really. :-|
>
>p.s. I own a decent vinyl rig and I have heard many 'top-class' rigs,
>including a couple of intensive sessions with the ultimate, the
>Rockport Sirius III/Insider. The audible differences among them are
>very obvious, hence all but one are by definition imperfect.
Stewart, *all* man-made things by definition are imperfect. Even
digital audio. When some thick-headed troll wants to make statements
concerning top-quality vinyl/turntables with NO PERSONAL EXPERIENCE
(sorry for the yelling...) then that person qualifies themselves as a
dickless
fuck.
>Dave's point *is* well made, even if not from his own experience.
You know from personal experience that DAve is full of shit. Especially
when he comments on something he knows nothing about, like vinyl.
Why do you support him?
teebo
**************************************************************
Reality is an illusion that occurs due to the lack of alcohol.
--W. C. Fields
Trotsky
<ar...@flash.net> wrote:
> Trotsky wrote in message ...
>
> >
> >Yep, the "scientists" definitely have an advantage on this one--I for one
> >can't look at a spec sheet and get an erection. Apparently you can, Arny.
>
> False claim. In another post I commented on the apparent inabiltiy of
> religious subjectivists like you and "The Resistance" to express an opinion
> without discending into the mire. Thanks for again proving my point!
>
> >How much longer do we have to put up with your garbage: "my personal
> >preference is more technologically accurate than your personal preference."
>
> What's at stake here is not personal preference for equipment, its personal
> preference for science and technology. I prefer science and technology when it
> comes to understanding and improving the reproduction of sound. Science and
> technology is how the whole business of reproducing sound started with Bell
> and Edison and the other less-well-known inventors of the art. Science and
> technology has been behind every major advance in it.
Perhaps you can have us enjoy one of your bullshit stories as to why
science and technology is important when we are talking about listening to
music?
>
>
> >Yep, that does it for me. I really feel ashamed now for enjoying a good
> record.
>
> Why?
Because I don't have proper respect for 'science and technology'. Somebody
should whack my pee-pee. Doogles, what are you doing later?
>
> >Maybe if I'm really lucky I will have a kid that will croak so I can walk a
> mile in your shoes.
>
>
> You'd need to have a life, too. With your ideology, it can't happen. Sad.
Right back at ya, good buddy!
Andrew Thibault
Arny Krüger <ar...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:VYlk2.647$Lg....@news.flash.net...
{SNIP!!}
CAn you say "ideology"? Can you say "reading comprehension problem"?
Can you say "if I ever heard a good vinyl setup I coudn't tell because my
ideology prevents me from acknowledging this fact"?
I knew you could! ;-)
Andrew Thibault
>>news:3694563e...@news.elnet.com...
>>
>>>I find it amusing how so many people claim to hear differences in
>>>cables, CD players, etc but can't hear distortion in vinyl? I don't
>>>care how expensive your analog rig is or how new or clean your records
>>>are, their is noise and distortion. Anyone who has ever claimed to
>>>hear a difference between amps, cables, CD players, or even speakers
>>>but can't hear distortion coming from a turn table is an
>>>embarrassment.
>>
>>What I find amazing is your continued insistence on being an ignorant
>asshole.
>
in
>profanity. Does that mean that the god of the religious subjectivist is
>profane?
If your ideology doesn't get in the way, you'll notice it took quite a bit
of trolling and general insults on Dave's part to cause such a reaction.
>>yet you are arrogant enough to tell vinyl lovers what we do and do not
hear.
>
>No, you tell us what you don't hear - all the well-known distortions and
>noises that are ineherent in the vinyl process.
I'll tell you what I don't hear in a quality vinyl/TT setup - that awful
glare
settling in between ~2khz to about 7 or 8khz that almost every CD I've
ever heard suffers from. This very thing is what caused me to go back
to vinyl. (yes, I abandoned it shortly after CD came to market, just like
lots of people)
And you know what? I couldn't care less that all your measurements might
not support this. All one needs to do is listen.
>If you were well-equipped enough, and smart enough, I'd ask you to send me
a
>CD-R of your vinyl setup playing a test record, and show you how bad vinyl
is
>with my FFT. But you aren't, I don't think.
Why would I waste my time with CD-R? And I couln't care less about your
FFT plots. Proof is in the pudding - CD sux. End of story. If somebody
could make it sound better than vinyl, I'll gladly buy, but I wouldn't hold
my breath waiting for such an occurrence.
Oh yeah, thanks for the insult about my intelligence. How does this _not_
make you like "the resistance"? Personal insults and all.....
teebo
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Not only do I talk to myself, I answer back.
Keeps me sharp.
- Howard Ferstler 11-28-98
Trotsky
<ar...@flash.net> wrote:
> Trotsky wrote in message ...
>
> >
Yep, it's called an "emotional response". Being a robot, though, you
wouldn't know about that. Normal people respond in a similarly emotional
way when listening to music, but you wouldn't know about that either. In
fact, this entire "holy war" seems to be about your envy of people enjoying
life more than you.
Trevor Wilson
Dave <_jt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
<3694563e...@news.elnet.com>...
>I find it amusing how so many people claim to hear differences in
>cables, CD players, etc but can't hear distortion in vinyl? I don't
>care how expensive your analog rig is or how new or clean your records
>are, their is noise and distortion. Anyone who has ever claimed to
>hear a difference between amps, cables, CD players, or even speakers
>but can't hear distortion coming from a turn table is an
>embarrassment.
**This post reflects many common misconceptions about the attractions many
find about analogue reproduction, specifically and vinyl in particular. Few
vinyl listeners dispute that vinyl has many shortcomings, listed ad nauseum
by Arny, Howard and others. The critical issue is that many analogue
listeners dislike the obvious and arguably just as severe shortcomings in
the present 16/44.1 digital system. Certainly, such digital systems have
several undeniable advantages, but just as certain are some rather
unfortunate drawbacks, which are impossible to ameliorate, until a higher
sampling rate is used.
Just for fun, look at the specs of a CD system and ask yourself: "Would I
buy an amplifier with similar specs to that displayed by the CD system?" The
answer will be a resounding: "NO". The CD system is quite poor by any
reasonable measure of audio equipment and vastly inferior to vinyl in
several key areas.
Cheers,
Trevor Wilson
http://www.hutch.com.au/~rage
JeffC 1474
>cut glass, I would have to assume that ANY jitter that was
>transferred to the tonearm would cause the diamond stylus to
>permanently mar the much softer vinyl. This would produce some
>form of noise or distortion for all future playings.
If that were true, then why doesn't the pointy diamond just
cut right through the vinyl as it is dragged across its grooves
with a pressure of thousands of pounds per square inch?
"Jitter" or not.
Regards,
Jeff
Arny Krüger
Trotsky wrote in message ...
>In article <rwok2.57$x53...@news.flash.net>, "Arny Krüger"
><ar...@flash.net> wrote:
>
>> Trotsky wrote in message ...
>>
>> >
>> >Yeah, you're right, Stew--"Dave" the dickhead sock puppet makes an
>> >excellent point, in Krooglish. He makes a statement and ends it in a
>> >question mark. I'm sure that works for you.
>> >
>> >As for hearing "distortion" in vinyl--where's your body of scientific
>> >evidence? What kind of a "scientist" are you--the grade school kind? "I
>> >call I can state opinions as facts and you can't. Nyah nyah nyah."
You're
>> >a joke. Put on your lab coat and get some facts. Present them before the
>> >AES. Get back to us if they don't laugh you out of town.
>> >
>> >
>> >So your opinion is for shit, what else is new?
>> >
>>
>>
>> Nothing like cool, reasoned rhetoric. ;-)
>>
>> But, from the religious subjectivists, this is what you get!
>
>
>
>Yep, it's called an "emotional response".
Many, if not most people are not so tightly wound that profanity is the only
way they can express their emotions.
>Being a robot, though, you wouldn't know about that.
If one of us is more prone to mechanical, predictable responses, it would be
you. I write reasonable, responsive posts, you treat them like trolls. I write
trolls, you bite.
If one of us is more prone to be fascinated by technology over actual audible
benefits, it would be you.
>Normal people respond in a similarly emotional way when listening to music,
but you wouldn't know about that either.
Why not? You've previously puzzled over why my favorite conductor has been
long dead, and has made no DDD recordings. Actually, there are precious few,
if any, actual stereo recordings by him.
If I'm so technologically biased, why is that? If you are so free of
technological hang-ups, why are you so surprised by my opinion?
>In fact, this entire "holy war" seems to be about your envy of people
enjoying life more than you.
Tell us about your wife, your children, and all the friends and relatives you
entertained over the recent, holidays. Tell us about the large social
organizations you've been an elected officer of and worked in for decades.
Tell us about your charitable works. Those are some of the things that have
made my life enjoyable.
I think you are a bitter little man, estranged from important family members,
who obsesses over his equipment and recordings. Outside of them and what you
claim non-paying job in a stereo shop, there just doesn't seem to be much!
Arny Krüger
Trotsky wrote in message ...
>
>science and technology is important when we are talking about listening to
>music?
Producing music is a science and an art. Composers pick notes in accordance
with mathematical relationships. Musicans tune their instruments to frequency
standards. Musical instruments represent many different stages of human
technological excellence. However, the emotion in music, which is what keeps
most of us coming back to it, is in the art.
Recording and reproducing music is a science and an art. Aside from
technology, there is simply no way to record and playback sounds with any
degree of exactness that would have a chance of fooling the ear into
perceiving that the music is produced, not reproduced. Since the options for
fooling the ear are, at this time limited, art is required to manage the
technology for the best emotional and artistic impact.
Doug Stabler
see http://www.tactaudio.com/
I recently had the opportunity to audition one vs Krells on Martin Logan
reQuests. Outstanding Amps!
Arny Krüger
Andrew Thibault wrote in message
>I'll tell you what I don't hear in a quality vinyl/TT setup - that awful
>glare
>settling in between ~2khz to about 7 or 8khz that almost every CD I've
>ever heard suffers from. This very thing is what caused me to go back
>to vinyl. (yes, I abandoned it shortly after CD came to market, just like
> lots of people)
It's easy to show that many vinyl playback setups have a big dip in the upper
midrange. It is a consequence of poor damping of the stylus tip/vinyl
resonance. Therefore, vinylphiles tend to gravitate towards speakers that have
increased response in the upper midrange. If you hook up a source that is
relatively free of this vinyl-induced coloration, to most vinylphile's
systems, you'll hear the increased response as harshness or glare.
The solution to vinyl/CD compatibility is to change the system's response so
that it is appropriate with both vinyl and CD sources. There are devices that
do this called equalizers.
Of course, since most vinylphiles don't believe in measurements or equalizers,
and think the world revolves around vinyl, they'll never figure this out.
I point this out several on Usenet times a year, and I'm bracing for the usual
flames.
Jus' tryin to help! ;-)
Arny Krüger
Trevor Wilson wrote in message <3691c...@139.134.5.33>...
>Dave <_jt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
><3694563e...@news.elnet.com>...
>
>>I find it amusing how so many people claim to hear differences in
>>cables, CD players, etc but can't hear distortion in vinyl? I don't
>>care how expensive your analog rig is or how new or clean your records
>>are, their is noise and distortion. Anyone who has ever claimed to
>>hear a difference between amps, cables, CD players, or even speakers
>>but can't hear distortion coming from a turn table is an
>>embarrassment.
>
>**This post reflects many common misconceptions about the attractions many
>find about analogue reproduction, specifically and vinyl in particular. Few
>vinyl listeners dispute that vinyl has many shortcomings, listed ad nauseum
>by Arny, Howard and others.
Actually, we've still got many who are in total denial about the egregious
audible flaws of vinyl.
>The critical issue is that many analogue
>listeners dislike the obvious and arguably just as severe shortcomings in
>the present 16/44.1 digital system.
The most "obnoxious" of which is flat system frequency response, as opposed to
the many and vast colorations that are inherent in vinyl.
>Just for fun, look at the specs of a CD system and ask yourself: "Would I
>buy an amplifier with similar specs to that displayed by the CD system?" The
>answer will be a resounding: "NO". The CD system is quite poor by any
>reasonable measure of audio equipment and vastly inferior to vinyl in
>several key areas.
Actually, Trevor and I have gone around on this point once already. I've
posted the performance of a low-cost CD player (The Sony CDPXE-500) at
http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/summary/index.htm . Other than the obvious
sharp cut-off at 22 kHz (generally shown to be inaudible with musical program
material) and measurable (but not audible) jitter, it could be a good power
amp or preamp.
Compare that report to a performance test of a classic vacuum tube preamp, the
Conrad Johnson PV-2 Preamplifier, shown at
http://www.pcavtech.com/sig_proc/reports/index.htm , and you'd probably pick
the CD player for noise, distortion, and frequency response in the audible
range.
Trevor has this thing about square wave response, but the need for ideal
square wave response at high frequencies is another one of those things that
seems to elude proof of need. Furthermore, the square wave reponse of neither
vinyl nor CD is anything that one would expect from a good amplifier, so his
point about square wave response is pretty moot.
Arny Krüger
Andrew Thibault wrote in message
>
>{SNIP!!}
>
>
>CAn you say "ideology"? Can you say "reading comprehension problem"?
>Can you say "if I ever heard a good vinyl setup I coudn't tell because my
>ideology prevents me from acknowledging this fact"?
>
I think you are quick to make claims that won't survive serious scrutiny.
Please just humor me and responsd to my technical challenge.
Prove the high performance of your vinyl setup by forwarding me a CD-R of it
playing a good test record!
I'll post the technical analysis of it, good, bad or indifferent!
Andrew Thibault
>
>Andrew Thibault wrote in message
>
>>I'll tell you what I don't hear in a quality vinyl/TT setup - that awful
>>glare
>>settling in between ~2khz to about 7 or 8khz that almost every CD I've
>>ever heard suffers from. This very thing is what caused me to go back
>>to vinyl. (yes, I abandoned it shortly after CD came to market, just like
>> lots of people)
>
>
>It's easy to show that many vinyl playback setups have a big dip in the
upper
>midrange. It is a consequence of poor damping of the stylus tip/vinyl
>resonance. Therefore, vinylphiles tend to gravitate towards speakers that
have
>increased response in the upper midrange. If you hook up a source that is
>relatively free of this vinyl-induced coloration, to most vinylphile's
>systems, you'll hear the increased response as harshness or glare.
>
>The solution to vinyl/CD compatibility is to change the system's response
so
>that it is appropriate with both vinyl and CD sources. There are devices
that
>do this called equalizers.
>
>Of course, since most vinylphiles don't believe in measurements or
equalizers,
>and think the world revolves around vinyl, they'll never figure this out.
Gratuitous insults aside, and speaking only for myself, if a digital format
came along that actually sounded good, I'd be there. Hasn't happend yet...
>I point this out several on Usenet times a year, and I'm bracing for the
usual
>flames.
No flames (at least not from me - yet). Would you consider DAL SC-Is to be
a speaker that has increased response in the upper-midrange? What about
Spica Angelus'? IME, neither has this increased response in the
upper-midrange. So why fool with an EQ and CD's when vinyl already sounds
good? (and no propaganda about current releases not appearing on vinyl....
most still appear, you just have to know where to look)
>Jus' tryin to help! ;-)
Sure you are..... ;-|
teebo
***************************************************
Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk.
That will teach you to keep your mouth shut.
--Ernest Hemingway
Andrew Thibault
>
>Andrew Thibault wrote in message
>>
>>{SNIP!!}
>>
>>
>>CAn you say "ideology"? Can you say "reading comprehension problem"?
>>Can you say "if I ever heard a good vinyl setup I coudn't tell because my
>>ideology prevents me from acknowledging this fact"?
>>
>
>
>I think you are quick to make claims that won't survive serious scrutiny.
>
>Please just humor me and responsd to my technical challenge.
>
>Prove the high performance of your vinyl setup by forwarding me a CD-R of
it
>playing a good test record!
I'll repeat it in case you missed it the first time....what good would a
CD-R
be to me? Answer: no good at all.
So what about your ideology imparing your hearing when it comes to vinyl?
>I'll post the technical analysis of it, good, bad or indifferent!
Numbers and graphs cannot substitue for listening, and you know it.
Dave
<teeb...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
>Arny Krüger <ar...@flash.net> wrote in message
>news:u0mk2.648$Lg....@news.flash.net...
>>
>>Andrew Thibault wrote in message
>><76rnj8$7f8$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>...
>>>
>>>Dave <_jt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:3694563e...@news.elnet.com...
>>>
>>>>I find it amusing how so many people claim to hear differences in
>>>>cables, CD players, etc but can't hear distortion in vinyl? I don't
>>>>care how expensive your analog rig is or how new or clean your records
>>>>are, their is noise and distortion. Anyone who has ever claimed to
>>>>hear a difference between amps, cables, CD players, or even speakers
>>>>but can't hear distortion coming from a turn table is an
>>>>embarrassment.
>>>
>>>What I find amazing is your continued insistence on being an ignorant
>>asshole.
>>
>>Here we go again. The religious subjectivist utters a prayer to his god -
>in
>>profanity. Does that mean that the god of the religious subjectivist is
>>profane?
>
>If your ideology doesn't get in the way, you'll notice it took quite a bit
>of trolling and general insults on Dave's part to cause such a reaction.
>
>
I say I can hear distortion in vinyl. You say you don't. I say you
are lying.
>>>yet you are arrogant enough to tell vinyl lovers what we do and do not
>hear.
>>
>>No, you tell us what you don't hear - all the well-known distortions and
>>noises that are ineherent in the vinyl process.
>
>
>I'll tell you what I don't hear in a quality vinyl/TT setup - that awful
>glare
>settling in between ~2khz to about 7 or 8khz that almost every CD I've
>ever heard suffers from. This very thing is what caused me to go back
>to vinyl. (yes, I abandoned it shortly after CD came to market, just like
> lots of people)
>
Glare? You could not hear a difference between an analog master and a
CD.
>And you know what? I couldn't care less that all your measurements might
>not support this. All one needs to do is listen.
>
>
You prefer distorted sound as opposed to more accurate sound
reproduction. You have every right to have this preference.
>
Fear3000
>The solution to vinyl/CD compatibility is to change the system's
> response so that it is appropriate with both vinyl and CD sources.
> There are devices that do this called equalizers.
ROTFLMAO !!!!
In my system , there's virtualy no difference in tonality between CD and vinyl
- no *equaliser* in sight! Do us all a favor and listen to a good system some
day!!! Sheeeeesh!
Best Wishes,
Fear3000
trotsky
Arny Krüger wrote:
> Trotsky wrote in message ...
> >In article <rwok2.57$x53...@news.flash.net>, "Arny Krüger"
> ><ar...@flash.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Trotsky wrote in message ...
> >>
> >> >
You are one confused automaton. I said "stereophonic" recordings, not DDD, and,
when Doogles started playing borg kebab tag team and stepped into the fray, I told
him that your answer had to be borne of ignorance because you couldn't name two
runners up. You have no idea what's good and what isn't so good in classical or
any genre of music, but that doesn't stop you from criticizing my mentioning E.
Power Biggs records, eh loser?
>
>
> If I'm so technologically biased, why is that? If you are so free of
> technological hang-ups, why are you so surprised by my opinion?
Who said I was surprised? Your limited use of the language fails you once again.
Here are some more accurate adjectives for you: appalled, sickened, disgusted,
nauseated, horrified, aghast.
>
>
> >In fact, this entire "holy war" seems to be about your envy of people
> enjoying life more than you.
>
> Tell us about your wife, your children, and all the friends and relatives you
> entertained over the recent, holidays. Tell us about the large social
> organizations you've been an elected officer of and worked in for decades.
> Tell us about your charitable works. Those are some of the things that have
> made my life enjoyable.
Really? The theory has already been put out on the table that your inability to
cope with these social gatherings has been the inspiration for your latest
enlivened round of attacks. I'll have to echo Gene Lyle's sentiments on this
one--you need help. You should be in therapy. Kibbutzing with relatively
unsympathetic guys like me probably isn't in your best interests.
>
>
> I think you are a bitter little man, estranged from important family members,
> who obsesses over his equipment and recordings. Outside of them and what you
> claim non-paying job in a stereo shop, there just doesn't seem to be much!
That's a strange thing to say, in light of the fact that you know nothing of my
relations with my family. Then again, you know nothing of my professional work
ethics, and that never stopped you. Serious question: why does lying come so easy
to you?
trotsky
Arny Krüger wrote:
> Trotsky wrote in message ...
> >
> >Perhaps you can have us enjoy one of your stories as to why
> >science and technology is important when we are talking about listening to
> >music?
>
> Producing music is a science and an art. Composers pick notes in accordance
> with mathematical relationships. Musicans tune their instruments to frequency
> standards. Musical instruments represent many different stages of human
> technological excellence. However, the emotion in music, which is what keeps
> most of us coming back to it, is in the art.
This is a cogent paragraph. Who's your ghost writer?
>
>
> Recording and reproducing music is a science and an art. Aside from
> technology, there is simply no way to record and playback sounds with any
> degree of exactness that would have a chance of fooling the ear into
> perceiving that the music is produced, not reproduced. Since the options for
> fooling the ear are, at this time limited, art is required to manage the
> technology for the best emotional and artistic impact.
Oh dear. It's like a boat crashing on the rocks. And you started off so well.
You seemed to be waxing philosophical there for a second, and then the Krooglish
module engaged, and BLAMMO! "...options for fooling the ear...", and "art is
required to manage the technology..."--somehow you slipped back to "Barvaria"
amongst the cuckoo clocks! The vagueness of the second paragraph is somewhat
fascinating in a Salvador Dali kind of way, but I always preferred H. Bosch
myself. Probably dirty pool, bringing up artists, huh?
Andrew Thibault
>I say I can hear distortion in vinyl. You say you don't. I say you
>are lying.
I say that you've never heard a top-quality TT/vinyl setup, and if you
had, you wouldn't make that statement about distortion other than
propaganda for your anti-vinyl agenda.
So your opinions on these things are absolutely worthless.
teebo
**************************************************************************
Arny Krüger
Andrew Thibault wrote in message
>>
>>Andrew Thibault wrote in message
>>>
>>>{SNIP!!}
>>>
>>>
>>>CAn you say "ideology"? Can you say "reading comprehension problem"?
>>>Can you say "if I ever heard a good vinyl setup I coudn't tell because my
>>>ideology prevents me from acknowledging this fact"?
>>>
>>
>>
>>I think you are quick to make claims that won't survive serious scrutiny.
>>
>>Please just humor me and responsd to my technical challenge.
>>
>>Prove the high performance of your vinyl setup by forwarding me a CD-R of
>it
>>playing a good test record!
>
>I'll repeat it in case you missed it the first time....what good would a
>CD-R be to me? Answer: no good at all.
That's because you are more interested in ideology than good sound?
IMO, every vinylphile should preserve the current sound quality of the active
parts of his collection on CD, and save wear and tear on the records until the
next major advance in the vinyl playback or digital recording SOTA.
>So what about your ideology imparing your hearing when it comes to vinyl?
I think that's your fantasy - another assertion you can't support
convincingly.
>
>>I'll post the technical analysis of it, good, bad or indifferent!
>
>Numbers and graphs cannot substitue for listening, and you know it.
>
If it measures like crap, it probably sounds like crap. Vinyl measures like
crap!
Curtis Leeds
> I find it amusing how so many people claim to hear differences in
> cables, CD players, etc but can't hear distortion in vinyl?
Who says we can't hear distortion on LP? How do you think
good LPs are separated from bad, and how proper LP setup is
confirmed?
Distortion on LP can be painfully obvious. It can also be
below audibility. There are a lot of variables, not the
least of which is the specific LP.
--
***************************************************
cle...@idt.net "I stood unwound beneath the skies
And clouds unbound by laws.
The cryin' rain like a trumpet sang
And asked for no applause." (Bob Dylan)
***************************************************
Andrew Thibault
>>I'll repeat it in case you missed it the first time....what good would a
>>CD-R be to me? Answer: no good at all.
>
>That's because you are more interested in ideology than good sound?
In fact, just the opposite! Why would I screw up the sound of good vinyl
by committing it to CD-R? Does CD-R sound better than CD? NO! So I
ask you again; why bother?
>IMO, every vinylphile should preserve the current sound quality of the
active
>parts of his collection on CD, and save wear and tear on the records until
the
>next major advance in the vinyl playback or digital recording SOTA.
Ok...lets focus on the key portion of this above statement; "IMO" you say,
and I say EXACTLY! It's your opinion, nothing more, nothing less.
It is my experience that with a large collection of vinyl and a high-quality
turntable/arm/cart unit that is set up correctly, an individual will not
cause
*audible* degradation of the LP. Certainly if you only have a handful of
records that you play constantly this may happen.....but, do you know
anybody like that?
Probably not.....
>>So what about your ideology imparing your hearing when it comes to vinyl?
>
>I think that's your fantasy - another assertion you can't support
>convincingly.
You support it for me daily with every post you make about vinyl.
It reveals your anti-vinyl ideology in far more detail than I ever could.
>>>I'll post the technical analysis of it, good, bad or indifferent!
>>Numbers and graphs cannot substitue for listening, and you know it.
>If it measures like crap, it probably sounds like crap. Vinyl measures like
>crap!
Ok, so vinyl doesn't measure as good as CD....that makes the fact that
vinyl sounds better than CD even funnier.
As a side note: gonna' answer about the "increased response in the upper
midrange" of the DAL SC-Is and the Spica Angelus'? It might support your
case, if you can hack it.....
teebo
Curtis Leeds
> Of course, since most vinylphiles don't believe in measurements or equalizers,
> and think the world revolves around vinyl, they'll never figure this out.
>
> I point this out several on Usenet times a year, and I'm bracing for the usual
> flames.
That's a silly little prejudicial remark. Many vinylphiles -
perhaps even most - value measurements. And by definition
we're using an equalizer in the RIAA stage. And we all know
that the world doesn't revolve around vinyl. It clearly
revolves around... Oh, never mind.
Curtis Leeds
> I say I can hear distortion in vinyl.
If tell us a little about your LP playback system perhaps we
can help you minimize the problems you're experiencing.
Curtis Leeds
> In my system , there's virtualy no difference in tonality between CD and vinyl...
It's the same here. Sometimes I get a bright CD, sometimes a
bright LP, but neither of those qualities is inherent to the
system. And a good flat master tape sounds like a good flat
master tape.
Edward M. Shain
wrote:
Teebo challenges Arny....
>>I'll repeat it in case you missed it the first time....what good would a
>>CD-R be to me? Answer: no good at all.
Arny replies.......
>IMO, every vinylphile should preserve the current sound quality of the active
>parts of his collection on CD, and save wear and tear on the records until the
>next major advance in the vinyl playback or digital recording SOTA.
Oh, My God in Heaven, Why has Thou Forsaken Me?
::begins to stumble and fall to his knees, shattered by the
realization that............No, No, it's too awful to contemplate!.. :
Ok. I'll spit it out. I think Arny's right here. There's
everything to gain and nothing to lose by transferring the music in
one's LP collection - particularly the stuff that can't be replaced -
onto a more permanent medium.
Yep, it will take scads of time and effort, but presumably, as
one plays a record for the sheer pleasure of it, one records it
simultaneously.
Putting aside questions about whether the cd-R will faithfully
record exactly the way the LP sounds (and I believe it will, though
playback maybe different), it has to be worth it just to maintain the
integrity of one's collection.
Sheeesh!! First I agree with Howie, now I agree with
Arny.......hmmmmm........has Euthanasia been made legal yet?
::sigh::
Forgive me, Teebo ::weeps piteously::
Ed
Andrew Thibault
Edward M. Shain <Vizsl...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:36954dae...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
>Teebo challenges Arny....
>>>I'll repeat it in case you missed it the first time....what good would a
>>>CD-R be to me? Answer: no good at all.
>
>Arny replies.......
>>IMO, every vinylphile should preserve the current sound quality of the
active
>>parts of his collection on CD, and save wear and tear on the records until
the
>>next major advance in the vinyl playback or digital recording SOTA.
> Ok. I'll spit it out. I think Arny's right here. There's
>everything to gain and nothing to lose by transferring the music in
>one's LP collection - particularly the stuff that can't be replaced -
>onto a more permanent medium.
How do you *know* that CD-R is more permanent? I suspect that
you (and others!) don't know that CD-R is more permanent.
> Sheeesh!! First I agree with Howie, now I agree with
>Arny.......hmmmmm........has Euthanasia been made legal yet?
>
> ::sigh::
>
>Forgive me, Teebo ::weeps piteously::
Although I contend that wear is a non-issue per my earlier post,
rendering the point of transferring LP's to CD-R moot, this is an
opinion group and if that's your opinion, well, OK. (even though
some here will not grant you that right unless they can insult you
at the same time....you know who you are ;-)
teebo
*************************************************
Reality is an illusion that occurs due to the lack of alcohol.
--W. C. Fields
Dave
<teeb...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
>Dave <_jt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:369339e3...@news.elnet.com...
>
>>I say I can hear distortion in vinyl. You say you don't. I say you
>>are lying.
>
>I say that you've never heard a top-quality TT/vinyl setup, and if you
>had, you wouldn't make that statement about distortion other than
>propaganda for your anti-vinyl agenda.
>
I have listened to quality TTs so your point is moot. There are
others as well who have listened to a top quality rig and say the same
thing I am saying.
>So your opinions on these things are absolutely worthless.
>
Have you been to China? If not how do you know its there? My guess
one would know its there through a vast amount of secondhand
information which allows one to reasonably conclude something without
firsthand experience. Your logic and reasoning is flawed. According
to your logic I can not state that China exists because I have never
been there.
Dave
wrote:
>Dave wrote:
>
>> I find it amusing how so many people claim to hear differences in
>> cables, CD players, etc but can't hear distortion in vinyl?
>
>Who says we can't hear distortion on LP? How do you think
>good LPs are separated from bad, and how proper LP setup is
>confirmed?
>
>Distortion on LP can be painfully obvious. It can also be
>below audibility. There are a lot of variables, not the
>least of which is the specific LP.
As long as people claim that there are audible differences in CD
players and cables. Distortion in LPs can never be below audibility.
Dave
<teeb...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>Although I contend that wear is a non-issue per my earlier post,
>rendering the point of transferring LP's to CD-R moot, this is an
>opinion group and if that's your opinion, well, OK. (even though
>some here will not grant you that right unless they can insult you
>at the same time....you know who you are ;-)
As if your contention that there is no audible distortion on vinyl is
not bad enough. Now you ae saying that vinyl does not wear! hehe
I suppose if you took a microscope and compared the before and after
of a record being played 1 time let alone 5 or 6 there would be no
difference.
Fear3000
>"Andrew Thibault"
><teeb...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>>Dave <_jt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:369339e3...@news.elnet.com...
>>>I say I can hear distortion in vinyl. You say you don't. I say you
>>>are lying.
>>I say that you've never heard a top-quality TT/vinyl setup, and if you
>>had, you wouldn't make that statement about distortion other than
>>propaganda for your anti-vinyl agenda.
>I have listened to quality TTs so your point is moot.
Considering how unwilling you have been to back your assertions with actions in
the last few weeks, I simply don't believe you.
>There are others as well who have listened to a top quality rig and
> say the same thing I am saying.
Like *who*?
Best Wishes,
Fear3000
Andrew Thibault
>On Tue, 5 Jan 1999 11:44:25 -0500, "Andrew Thibault"
><teeb...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>>Dave <_jt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:369339e3...@news.elnet.com...
>>>I say I can hear distortion in vinyl. You say you don't. I say you
>>>are lying.
>>I say that you've never heard a top-quality TT/vinyl setup, and if you
>>had, you wouldn't make that statement about distortion other than
>>propaganda for your anti-vinyl agenda.
>I have listened to quality TTs so your point is moot. There are
>others as well who have listened to a top quality rig and say the same
>thing I am saying.
The top-notch rig that you claim to have heard, although decent, is
_far_ from top notch. Others that claim to have heard a top quality
rig have their ears deafened by their own anti-vinyl rhetoric.
>>So your opinions on these things are absolutely worthless.
>Have you been to China? If not how do you know its there? My guess
>one would know its there through a vast amount of secondhand
>information which allows one to reasonably conclude something without
>firsthand experience. Your logic and reasoning is flawed. According
>to your logic I can not state that China exists because I have never
>been there.
No - according to your terribly flawed logic one cannot state that China
exists....my logic allows for the fact that something exists even though
I haven't seen it.
By my logic you cannot make a judgement on life in China because
you have no experience there.
Try again.
teebo
***************************************
Work is the curse of the drinking class.
--Oscar Wilde
Andrew Thibault
But how would you know, not ever having heard LP at its finest?
Answer: you wouldn't.
Try making some room in your anti-vinyl agenda to accomodate
a few facts.
Arny Krüger
Andrew Thibault wrote in message
>
>No flames (at least not from me - yet). Would you consider DAL SC-Is to be
>a speaker that has increased response in the upper-midrange?
As always, depends on the room, placement in the room, and listener location.
Fear3000
>Arny Krüger <ar...@flash.net> wrote
>>every vinylphile should preserve the current sound quality of
>> the active parts of his collection on CD, and save wear and tear on
>>the records ...
>It is my experience that with a large collection of vinyl and a high-quality
>turntable/arm/cart unit that is set up correctly, an individual will not
>cause *audible* degradation of the LP
My experience exactly.
>Certainly if you only have a handful of
>records that you play constantly this may happen.....but, do you know
>anybody like that?
Let me add that there's nothing easier to screw up, then the setup of a TT.
Couple that with sub-par record maintanence and poorly designed components, and
the sound tends to be very poor even when compared to the CD.
>>If it measures like crap, it probably sounds like crap. Vinyl
>> measures like crap!
[the key word here is "probably"; the truth is that you simply don't know]
>Ok, so vinyl doesn't measure as good as CD
That's only using the parameters used to measure LPs which in turn contain none
of the digital garbage common to the CD. When we can actually equate sound
quality with quantitative data; that'll be the day when Arny's assertion may
hold water.
>As a side note: gonna' answer about the "increased response in
> the upper midrange" of the DAL SC-Is and the Spica Angelus'?
[Fester must have helped him with this one.]
You can include my system here as well. If anything, I value speed and
transperancy over a dark and distant presentation.
Best Wishes,
Fear3000
Andrew Thibault
>On Tue, 5 Jan 1999 13:01:19 -0500, "Andrew Thibault"
><teeb...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
>>Although I contend that wear is a non-issue per my earlier post,
>>rendering the point of transferring LP's to CD-R moot, this is an
>>opinion group and if that's your opinion, well, OK. (even though
>>some here will not grant you that right unless they can insult you
>>at the same time....you know who you are ;-)
>
>As if your contention that there is no audible distortion on vinyl is
>not bad enough. Now you ae saying that vinyl does not wear! hehe
>I suppose if you took a microscope and compared the before and after
>of a record being played 1 time let alone 5 or 6 there would be no
>difference.
Who cares what you see under the microscope? Is that how you
listen to records? NO! What we are concerned with is audibility.
If you would actually read my earlier post, you would see that my
claim is not that LP's don't wear, but that with good equipment and
correct setup wear is minimised to such a degree as to be inaudible.
If you can't read or you can't comprehend what you read, just say so!
I won't think any less of you (as if that's possible...).
Arny Krüger
Fear3000 wrote in message <19990105113027...@ng21.aol.com>...
>>From: "Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net>
>
>>The solution to vinyl/CD compatibility is to change the system's
>> response so that it is appropriate with both vinyl and CD sources.
>> There are devices that do this called equalizers.
>
>ROTFLMAO !!!!
>
>- no *equaliser* in sight!
The difference in tonality between CD and vinyl is often level dependent. Get
it right at one level, and its a little wrong someplace else. Some people
can't hear this, but many can. While there are technical reasons why vinyl's
tonality is changing, the tonality of CD remains the same over a wide range of
levels.
Think I'm kidding? Send me a CD-R of your vinyl system playing a test record
that has frequency tests at various levels.
Fear3000
Smokin', Andrew!!!
I don't think Dave will be back today; long lines at the Emergency room. :-))
>From: "Andrew Thibault" <teeb...@frontiernet.net>
>Dave <_jt...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>So your opinions on these things are absolutely worthless.
>>Have you been to China? If not how do you know its there? My guess
>>one would know its there through a vast amount of secondhand
>>information which allows one to reasonably conclude something without
>>firsthand experience. Your logic and reasoning is flawed. According
>>to your logic I can not state that China exists because I have never
>>been there.
>No - according to your terribly flawed logic one cannot state that China
>exists....my logic allows for the fact that something exists even though
>I haven't seen it.
>By my logic you cannot make a judgement on life in China because
>you have no experience there.
>Try again.
Best Wishes,
Fear3000
Arny Krüger
Curtis Leeds wrote in message <36924D5E...@idt.net>...
>"Arny Krüger" wrote:
>
>> Of course, since most vinylphiles don't believe in measurements or
equalizers,
>> and think the world revolves around vinyl, they'll never figure this out.
>>
>> I point this out several on Usenet times a year, and I'm bracing for the
usual
>> flames.
>
>That's a silly little prejudicial remark. Many vinylphiles -
>perhaps even most - value measurements.
Not Thibault and Fear3000.
>And by definition we're using an equalizer in the RIAA stage.
You know that, I know that, but try to convince the likes of Thibault and
Fear3000 of that. They also deny the logical consequences of that which you
and I think are pretty obvious.
Arny Krüger
Andrew Thibault wrote in message
>
>>I say I can hear distortion in vinyl. You say you don't. I say you
>>are lying.
>
>I say that you've never heard a top-quality TT/vinyl setup, and if you
>had, you wouldn't make that statement about distortion other than
>propaganda for your anti-vinyl agenda.
Tell us how a top quality TT/vinyl setup reduces the geometric distortion
inherent in vinyl. While you are at it, tell us how it undoes the SNR problems
of vinyl. And, of course, tell us how it does away with the FR variations.
I'm presuming that your TT/Vinyl setup is telekenetic or something like it,
and can tell what kind of processing was used to squeeze the master tape onto
vinyl in the first place. Then, I presume it can anticipate the location of
minor dirt on the record, as well as warp wow, eccentricity, scratches, and
the like.
BTW, about as close as one can get to that in the real world, is a real human
being doing some very sophisticated and creative things with a DAW and a
digital transcription of vinyl. And he still can't get things to anything like
CD levels of relative perfection.
Arny Krüger
Fear3000 wrote in message <19990105142112...@ng21.aol.com>...
>
>>I have listened to quality TTs so your point is moot.
>
>Considering how unwilling you have been to back your assertions with actions
in
>the last few weeks, I simply don't believe you.
Then why bother responding?
Answer: you don't really believe it yourself. Hence all the posturing.
Arny Krüger
Andrew Thibault wrote in message
>The top-notch rig that you claim to have heard, although decent, is
>_far_ from top notch. Others that claim to have heard a top quality
>rig have their ears deafened by their own anti-vinyl rhetoric.
Easy cop out. Same rhetoric we get from people who think every amplifier
sounds different, every cable sounds different, etc., etc.
The fact that vinyl always has audible distortion is scientifically proven.
You need to read all the AES papers about the refinements that were put on
vinyl, and how limited their success was, by modern standards.
The fact that the basic CD technology is pretty darn close to being audibly
perfect is scientifically proven, too.
Furhtermore, if you would come up with a digital transcription of your
"Golden" turntable playing a good test record, I'd prove it to you.
No way am I going to buy a turntable to help you see the light. Furthermore,
its clear that any turntable I lined up to test would get the same
posture-matic response from you.
So, just enjoy all that harshness, clicks and pops! Those of us who prefer to
listen to music, not noise will be over here with our CD's.
I just hope you see the light and start transcribing your vinyl to CD before
the grooves are gone!
Arny Krüger
Curtis Leeds wrote in message <36924DDF...@idt.net>...
>Dave wrote:
>
>> I say I can hear distortion in vinyl.
>
>can help you minimize the problems you're experiencing.
Got any idea what the best levels of THD one can get off vinyl at various and
frequencies and levels?
Hint: many of them are well above the threshold of audibilty.
Fear3000
>Curtis Leeds wrote
>>That's a silly little prejudicial remark. Many vinylphiles -
>>perhaps even most - value measurements.
>Not Thibault and Fear3000.
Thanks for speaking for me ;-)
I value measurements a great deal; I just don't consider them to be the
deciding factor in the "goodness" of a component, nor can measurements alone
predict the performance of that component.
[I thought we were clear on this ]
>>And by definition we're using an equalizer in the RIAA stage.
>You know that, I know that, but try to convince the likes of Thibault and
>Fear3000 of that. They also deny the logical consequences of that
> which you and I think are pretty obvious.
That's just plain silly!!! When have you ever heard me say otherwise?
It's interesting that you attribute this drivel to me, since I'm usually the
one who recommends investing in a well designed phono stage when asked for
advice.
Best Wishes,
Fear3000
Arny Krüger
Andrew Thibault wrote in message
>>>CD-R be to me? Answer: no good at all.
>>
>
>In fact, just the opposite! Why would I screw up the sound of good vinyl
>by committing it to CD-R?
To preserve it.
>Does CD-R sound better than CD? NO!
But it can pretty much fully capture the sound of vinyl. Many are reporting
this.
>So I ask you again; why bother?
To preserve it,unless your records are so far gone that playing them more
won't degrade them because they are already pretty much fully degraded.
>>IMO, every vinylphile should preserve the current sound quality of the
>active
>>parts of his collection on CD, and save wear and tear on the records until
>the
>>next major advance in the vinyl playback or digital recording SOTA.
>
>Ok...lets focus on the key portion of this above statement; "IMO" you say,
>and I say EXACTLY! It's your opinion, nothing more, nothing less.
It's the opinon of many who are doing exactly what I suggest. And, its an
opinion with sound technical backing.
>It is my experience that with a large collection of vinyl and a high-quality
>turntable/arm/cart unit that is set up correctly, an individual will not
>cause *audible* degradation of the LP.
Probably true if the LP's are already sufficently degraded.
>Certainly if you only have a handful of records that you play constantly this
may happen.....but, do you know anybody like that?
I know that there is visible wear on records that can be seen with a
microscope after less than a dozen playings, and that the microscopically
visible damage continues to increase with additional playing.
>>>So what about your ideology imparing your hearing when it comes to vinyl?
>>
>>I think that's your fantasy - another assertion you can't support
>>convincingly.
>
>You support it for me daily with every post you make about vinyl.
How? It's not my fault that I understand the limitations of vinyl technology
and you have your head in the sand where everthing is rosy.
>It reveals your anti-vinyl ideology in far more detail than I ever could.
>
>>>>I'll post the technical analysis of it, good, bad or indifferent!
>
>>>Numbers and graphs cannot substitue for listening, and you know it.
>
>>If it measures like crap, it probably sounds like crap. Vinyl measures like
>>crap!
>
>Ok, so vinyl doesn't measure as good as CD....that makes the fact that
>vinyl sounds better than CD even funnier.
It shows that some vinylphiles, such as you, are motivated by ideology, not
good sound.
>As a side note: gonna' answer about the "increased response in the upper
>midrange" of the DAL SC-Is and the Spica Angelus'? It might support your
>case, if you can hack it.....
Like I said, it depends on the room, the speaker placement, and the location
of the listener.
Arny Krüger
Andrew Thibault wrote in message
>
>Edward M. Shain <Vizsl...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:36954dae...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
>>On Tue, 05 Jan 1999 17:05:49 GMT, "Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net>
>>wrote:
>
>>Teebo challenges Arny....
>>>>CD-R be to me? Answer: no good at all.
>>
>>>IMO, every vinylphile should preserve the current sound quality of the
>active
>>>parts of his collection on CD, and save wear and tear on the records until
>the
>>>next major advance in the vinyl playback or digital recording SOTA.
>
>
>>everything to gain and nothing to lose by transferring the music in
>>one's LP collection - particularly the stuff that can't be replaced -
>>onto a more permanent medium.
>
>How do you *know* that CD-R is more permanent?
Because records show mechanical wear after a few playings, and CD-R's don't.
If you preserve the record, and play the CD-R, perchance the CD-R should wear
out, you can always burn another. If you wear out the LP, you are sorta
screwed.
Even if CD-R's only lasted for 100 playings, their proper use would extend the
life of your vinyl collection almost indefinately.
Notice that I'm not suggesting that you scrap your vinyl collection, or your
vinyl playback system. Keep it. Enhance it. Buy more vinyl! But please take
reasonable safeguards to protect what you have!
Arny Krüger
Andrew Thibault wrote in message
>Who cares what you see under the microscope? Is that how you listen to
records? NO!
No, but there is a strong relationship between the geometry of the information
in a LP's grooves, and what you hear. If you believe otherwise, then you are
so deep into ideology that there is no hope.
Obviously, you've never seen a commercial vinyl-cutting rig being used, or
spent any time talking to a mastering engineer. If you ever do, check out the
microscope they almost always have kicking around and ask what its for...
Fear3000
>Fear3000 wrote [to Dave]:
Dave:
>>>I have listened to quality TTs so your point is moot.
>>Considering how unwilling you have been to back your assertions
>> with actions in the last few weeks, I simply don't believe you.
Arny:
>Then why bother responding?
Boy, now I know I'm on your hit list <g>. I thought the answer was
self-evident in the body of the original post.
BTW, shouldn't that have been a question you may have wanted to ask *yourself*
_before_ posting?
Best Wishes,
Fear3000
Arny Krüger
Andrew Thibault wrote in message
>>On Tue, 05 Jan 1999 12:26:30 -0500, Curtis Leeds <cle...@idt.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Dave wrote:
>>>
>>>> I find it amusing how so many people claim to hear differences in
>>>> cables, CD players, etc but can't hear distortion in vinyl?
>>>
>>>Who says we can't hear distortion on LP? How do you think
>>>good LPs are separated from bad, and how proper LP setup is
>>>confirmed?
>>>
>>>Distortion on LP can be painfully obvious. It can also be
>>>below audibility. There are a lot of variables, not the
>>>least of which is the specific LP.
>>
>>As long as people claim that there are audible differences in CD
>>players and cables. Distortion in LPs can never be below audibility.
>
>But how would you know, not ever having heard LP at its finest?
>Answer: you wouldn't.
>
>Try making some room in your anti-vinyl agenda to accomodate
>a few facts.
>
Now that you've announced that you believe that there is no connection between
the physical configuration of LP grooves and what you hear... its really clear
that you are too far into your vinyl agenda to accomodate even "a few facts".
Andrew Thibault
Fear3000 <fear...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990105144752...@ng21.aol.com...
>
>Smokin', Andrew!!!
>
>I don't think Dave will be back today; long lines at the Emergency room.
:-))
Oh, he'll be back. He can't help it. :-o
teebo
Andrew Thibault
>
>Curtis Leeds wrote in message <36924D5E...@idt.net>...
>>"Arny Krüger" wrote:
>>
>>> Of course, since most vinylphiles don't believe in measurements or
>equalizers,
>>> and think the world revolves around vinyl, they'll never figure this
out.
>>>
>>> I point this out several on Usenet times a year, and I'm bracing for the
>usual
>>> flames.
>>
>>perhaps even most - value measurements.
>
>Not Thibault and Fear3000.
Listening beats measuring every time. And you know this.
I suggest you drop the anti-vinyl agenda. It makes you look stupid.
>>And by definition we're using an equalizer in the RIAA stage.
>You know that, I know that, but try to convince the likes of Thibault and
>Fear3000 of that. They also deny the logical consequences of that which you
>and I think are pretty obvious.
Reading my mind again, Arniii? Show me one post of mine where
I deny that the RIAA curve is not an EQ. My only problem (if it can even
be called a problem) is with additional, unnecessary, outboard EQ.
Fear3000
>Arny Krüger <ar...@flash.net> wrote
>>You know that, I know that, but try to convince the likes of Thibault and
>>Fear3000 of that. They also deny the logical consequences of that
>>which you and I think are pretty obvious.
>Reading my mind again, Arniii? Show me one post of mine where
>I deny that the RIAA curve is not an EQ. My only problem (if it can even
>be called a problem) is with additional, unnecessary, outboard EQ.
I've always liked Kruger. He's not nearly as outright stupid as Fester, nor is
he a wimp like Mikey and Gene. He stands there, waving the proud flag of the
ABX admiration society each and every day. Something to be said for that ;-)
I also like [honestly] how he can take a personal or ideologial fault of his,
and suddenly make it that of his "opponent" (the above is a great example).
A rarely cross paths with Kruger, the techno shit really bores me, but at times
he can be entertaining.
Best Wishes,
Fear3000
Andrew Thibault
>
>Andrew Thibault wrote in message
>>The top-notch rig that you claim to have heard, although decent, is
>>_far_ from top notch. Others that claim to have heard a top quality
>>rig have their ears deafened by their own anti-vinyl rhetoric.
>
>
>Easy cop out.
So the truth is a cop out? GMAB...
>Same rhetoric we get from people who think every amplifier
>sounds different, every cable sounds different, etc., etc.
Oh...I see. You're losing the argument, so you need to make
a cute little strawman. I've got news for you, Arniii - this is not
about electronics sounding different.
>
>The fact that vinyl always has audible distortion is scientifically proven.
>You need to read all the AES papers about the refinements that were put on
>vinyl, and how limited their success was, by modern standards.
I don't need to read ANYTHING. The proof is in the listening and vinyl
sounds better.
>
>The fact that the basic CD technology is pretty darn close to being audibly
>perfect is scientifically proven, too.
Oh really? What about that persistent midrange/upper-midrange glare
that CD has? You still don't have a satisfactory answer to that one.
>
>Furhtermore, if you would come up with a digital transcription of your
>"Golden" turntable playing a good test record, I'd prove it to you.
And I'll ask you for the third time today: what possible use could I have
for a digital transcription device? You still don't have a decent
explanation
for that, either.
>No way am I going to buy a turntable to help you see the light.
Furthermore,
>its clear that any turntable I lined up to test would get the same
>posture-matic response from you.
Since your hearing is so muffled by your ideology, you couldn't/wouldn't
admit that it sounded good anyway. So I think that it's rather pointless,
don't you?
>
>So, just enjoy all that harshness, clicks and pops! Those of us who prefer
to
>listen to music, not noise will be over here with our CD's.
That statement tells me all I need to know about your familiarity (or lack
of...)
with a decent TT. Enjoy your midrange glare of CD!
>I just hope you see the light and start transcribing your vinyl to CD
before
>the grooves are gone!
I've commented on the wear issue earlier today. You haven't responded.
Makes me think that you can't....
teebo
Andrew Thibault
>Tell us how a top quality TT/vinyl setup reduces the geometric distortion
>inherent in vinyl. While you are at it, tell us how it undoes the SNR
problems
>of vinyl. And, of course, tell us how it does away with the FR variations.
[snip..]
>being doing some very sophisticated and creative things with a DAW and a
>digital transcription of vinyl. And he still can't get things to anything
>like CD levels of relative perfection.
I don't need to provide a technical explanation. The proof is in the
listening.
When I listen, vinyl sounds better. It's that simple.
teebo
Andrew Thibault
>
>Andrew Thibault wrote in message
>>
>
>>No flames (at least not from me - yet). Would you consider DAL SC-Is to be
>>a speaker that has increased response in the upper-midrange?
>
>As always, depends on the room, placement in the room, and listener
location.
IOW, these speakers, in the context of this thread, make your argument
very weak....so I'll try to make it easier on you. This glare that I am
talking
about manifests itself on every system I've ever heard to one degree or
another. Explanation? I have one, but you're not gonna' like it.....
Andrew Thibault
>
>Andrew Thibault wrote in message
>
>>Who cares what you see under the microscope? Is that how you listen to
>records? NO!
>
>
>Obviously, you've never seen a commercial vinyl-cutting rig being used, or
>spent any time talking to a mastering engineer. If you ever do, check out
the
>microscope they almost always have kicking around and ask what its for...
My claim still stands about inaudible wear.
I notice that you haven't touched it.............
teebo
Andrew Thibault
>I've always liked Kruger.
Honestly, I've got nothing personal against the man.
I just disagree with his audio opinions - that's what makes
a round or two fun.....
teebo
Stewart Pinkerton
>Ok, so vinyl doesn't measure as good as CD....that makes the fact that
>vinyl sounds better than CD even funnier.
That's not a *fact*, it's just your personal preference. It's not
mine.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
Stewart Pinkerton
>Stewart Pinkerton <pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:3691bc5e...@news.dircon.co.uk...
>>"Andrew Thibault" <teeb...@frontiernet.net> writes:
>>
>>>Dave <_jt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:3694563e...@news.elnet.com...
>>>
>>>>I find it amusing how so many people claim to hear differences in
>>>>cables, CD players, etc but can't hear distortion in vinyl? I don't
>>>>care how expensive your analog rig is or how new or clean your records
>>>>are, their is noise and distortion. Anyone who has ever claimed to
>>>>hear a difference between amps, cables, CD players, or even speakers
>>>>but can't hear distortion coming from a turn table is an
>>>>embarrassment.
>>>
>>>What I find amazing is your continued insistence on being an ignorant
>>>asshole. You've never heard a top-class turntable, yet you are arrogant
>>>enough to tell vinyl lovers what we do and do not hear.
>>>
>>>Come back when you can afford to buy a clue, you dickless fuck.
>>
>>However, he *does* make a pretty good point, no? :-)
>
>No, not really. :-|
And why not? I can easily hear most of the inherent problems of vinyl,
even on the best rigs, but I can seldom hear differences among cables.
How come the LP lovers claim not to hear those problems - but often
*do* claim to hear cable differences?
>>p.s. I own a decent vinyl rig and I have heard many 'top-class' rigs,
>>including a couple of intensive sessions with the ultimate, the
>>Rockport Sirius III/Insider. The audible differences among them are
>>very obvious, hence all but one are by definition imperfect.
>
>Stewart, *all* man-made things by definition are imperfect. Even
>digital audio.
Quite so, but many CD players and amps are not *audibly* different,
whereas I have never heard two vinyl rigs sound the same.
> When some thick-headed troll wants to make statements
>concerning top-quality vinyl/turntables with NO PERSONAL EXPERIENCE
>(sorry for the yelling...) then that person qualifies themselves as a
>dickless fuck.
One might equally well argue that anyone claiming that he can hear
differences among cables, but yet hears no distortion or noise from
LP, is an earless fuck.............
>>Dave's point *is* well made, even if not from his own experience.
>
>You know from personal experience that DAve is full of shit. Especially
>when he comments on something he knows nothing about, like vinyl.
>Why do you support him?
One of the major problems of this newsgroup is that people are unable
to distinguish between the person and the argument. I do not always
agree with Dave, but in this case he makes a good point.
Stewart Pinkerton
>Just for fun, look at the specs of a CD system and ask yourself: "Would I
>buy an amplifier with similar specs to that displayed by the CD system?" The
>answer will be a resounding: "NO".
Oh really? What's wrong with an amplifier which has 0.001% distortion
from 20Hz to 20kHz, and a 100dB S/N ratio? That's better than most on
the market!
> The CD system is quite poor by any
>reasonable measure of audio equipment and vastly inferior to vinyl in
>several key areas.
Oh really? And just what key areas would those be?
Douglas
>
>You know from personal experience that DAve is full of shit. Especially
>when he comments on something he knows nothing about, like vinyl.
>Why do you support him?
>
You don't have to know anything about vinyl to hear distortion and popping
in vinyl recordings. You just have to have ears.
I am making a respectful post here, I do think vinyl has some nice
qualities. But I also think that it is ridiculously expensive to buy a vinyl
system which even approaches a competent digital one when it comes to price
comparisons. And ultimately I think that vinyl is not as true to the sound
as digital. True, in your opinion, vinyl's qualities of "warmth" and
"immediacy" and "airiness" might sound more musical to you. I prefer an
impeccable reproduction of the actual sound as it was recorded.
So in short, I respect you views, but I respectfully disagree. And I do
think you're fooling yourself if you claim to hear the difference between
$100 and $1000 interconnects, but not the distortion in a vinyl recording.
Checking........I still have a penis. Although I suspect you'll call me a
"dickless fuck" nonetheless. Oh, and I do know a few things about vinyl too.
Douglas not arny
Stewart Pinkerton
>
>Dave <_jt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:36945ef9...@news.elnet.com...
>>On Tue, 5 Jan 1999 11:44:25 -0500, "Andrew Thibault"
>><teeb...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
>>>Dave <_jt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:369339e3...@news.elnet.com...
>
>>>>I say I can hear distortion in vinyl. You say you don't. I say you
>>>>are lying.
>
>>>I say that you've never heard a top-quality TT/vinyl setup, and if you
>>>had, you wouldn't make that statement about distortion other than
>>>propaganda for your anti-vinyl agenda.
>
>>I have listened to quality TTs so your point is moot. There are
>>others as well who have listened to a top quality rig and say the same
>>thing I am saying.
>
>The top-notch rig that you claim to have heard, although decent, is
>_far_ from top notch. Others that claim to have heard a top quality
>rig have their ears deafened by their own anti-vinyl rhetoric.
Rubbish. The only deafened ears are those which claim that vinyl has
no audible defects.
Some may quite legitimately *prefer* vinyl, but to claim that it has
no audible defects does not help their cause, it simply invites
ridicule, especially when combined with claims of superior hearing
ability and aesthetic sense, as has happened in the past.
Stewart Pinkerton
>Let me add that there's nothing easier to screw up, then the setup of a TT.
>Couple that with sub-par record maintanence and poorly designed components, and
>the sound tends to be very poor even when compared to the CD.
That's a standard cop-out. I've heard the Rockport Sirius set up by
Andy Payor himself, and while quite magnificent, it still suffered the
inevitable *and audible* problems caused by having to play vinyl
records.
Dave
<teeb...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
>Dave <_jt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:36945ef9...@news.elnet.com...
>>On Tue, 5 Jan 1999 11:44:25 -0500, "Andrew Thibault"
>><teeb...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
>>>Dave <_jt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:369339e3...@news.elnet.com...
>
>>>>I say I can hear distortion in vinyl. You say you don't. I say you
>>>>are lying.
>
>>>I say that you've never heard a top-quality TT/vinyl setup, and if you
>>>had, you wouldn't make that statement about distortion other than
>>>propaganda for your anti-vinyl agenda.
>
>>I have listened to quality TTs so your point is moot. There are
>>others as well who have listened to a top quality rig and say the same
>>thing I am saying.
>
>The top-notch rig that you claim to have heard, although decent, is
>_far_ from top notch. Others that claim to have heard a top quality
>rig have their ears deafened by their own anti-vinyl rhetoric.
>
Why is one top notch and the other not? Does the top notch one have
better measurements? Because after all measurements don't matter just
listening as you point out. Explain to me how the top notch turn
table is constructed that enables it to have inaudible distortion.
Deafened by rhetoric? I hear people saying they hear distortion in
vinyl. You seem to be deafened by your pro-vinyl rhetoric.
>>>So your opinions on these things are absolutely worthless.
>
>>Have you been to China? If not how do you know its there? My guess
>>one would know its there through a vast amount of secondhand
>>information which allows one to reasonably conclude something without
>>firsthand experience. Your logic and reasoning is flawed. According
>>to your logic I can not state that China exists because I have never
>>been there.
>
>No - according to your terribly flawed logic one cannot state that China
>exists....my logic allows for the fact that something exists even though
>I haven't seen it.
>
hehe you are kidding, right? You are saying that I can not state that
there is audible distortion in a top notch setup because I have not
heard one. This seems the same as saying I cannot not state that
china exists because I have not seen it.
>By my logic you cannot make a judgement on life in China because
>you have no experience there.
>
Obviously, under your logic I have no right to say China even exists.
Edward M. Shain
wrote:
>It shows that some vinylphiles, such as you, are motivated by ideology, not
>good sound.
No, Arny, that's not a fair comment. Anybody who's ever had
experience with a good rig for records, knows that it's capable of
producing stunning music.
That's apart from arguments about which measures better, and
even apart from the relative comparison of cd to lp, which is a matter
of preference.
If one is being honest, on an absolute standard, good analog
rigs with a good lp reproduce beautiful music in a wonderfully
pleasing way on its own terms, and no one should have to defend that
statement. Hell, we all loved our records when there was no
replacement for them.
Beyond that, there are pleasures in the gear itself. A
beautiful turntable is a thing of beauty. So is a magnificent
tone-arm. Analog can offer a thoroughly satisfying and seductive
experience.
Relishing such joys is not an ideological experience. It is a
wonderfully musical one.
Ed
Edward M. Shain
wrote:
Teebo responds....
>>How do you *know* that CD-R is more permanent?
>
Arny answers.......
>Because records show mechanical wear after a few playings, and CD-R's don't.
>If you preserve the record, and play the CD-R, perchance the CD-R should wear
>out, you can always burn another. If you wear out the LP, you are sorta
>screwed.
>
>Even if CD-R's only lasted for 100 playings, their proper use would extend the
>life of your vinyl collection almost indefinately.
>
>Notice that I'm not suggesting that you scrap your vinyl collection, or your
>vinyl playback system. Keep it. Enhance it. Buy more vinyl! But please take
>reasonable safeguards to protect what you have!
When the man's right, he's right. I wish I had done that with
my lp's. If I had, I'd have all that music with me right now.
Sometimes, I confess, though, that I miss the analog stuff.
As much as I like cds, there was something about analogue, a depth, a
something I can't pinpoint, that's missing from cd's, even though I
think digital is a far better storage and playback system.
Ed
>
>
>
Dave
<teeb...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>x
>Arny Krüger <ar...@flash.net> wrote in message
That is fine but the fact is CD is superior to vinyl in reproducing
sound accurately. The vinyl sounds better to you means very little.
You may prefer colored sound plus distortion in your music but that is
preference and people don't always prefer accurate sound. The fact is
some people may think the sound out of an old cheap radio sounds
better than some fancy stereo system with a top notch turntable.
Though the latter will reproduce sound more accurately and one can say
so and be correct. But If some old guy thinks his radio sounds better
what can you do.
Andrew Thibault
Douglas <dhamil...@hamiltonassoc.com> wrote in message
news:76u024$lqs$1...@winter.news.rcn.net...>
>>You know from personal experience that DAve is full of shit. Especially
>>when he comments on something he knows nothing about, like vinyl.
>>Why do you support him?
>You don't have to know anything about vinyl to hear distortion and popping
>in vinyl recordings. You just have to have ears.
I simply say - go hear a good rig that's well setup. The difference in
quality is staggering in favor of vinyl. And yeah, that's my _opinion_.
>I am making a respectful post here, I do think vinyl has some nice
>qualities. But I also think that it is ridiculously expensive to buy a
vinyl
>system which even approaches a competent digital one when it comes to price
>comparisons. And ultimately I think that vinyl is not as true to the sound
>as digital. True, in your opinion, vinyl's qualities of "warmth" and
>"immediacy" and "airiness" might sound more musical to you. I prefer an
>impeccable reproduction of the actual sound as it was recorded.
I don't prefer an awful 2khz to ~7khz glare present to one degree
or another on every CD made. Can't you hear it?
Real LifeT doesn't sound like that.
>So in short, I respect you views, but I respectfully disagree. And I do
>think you're fooling yourself if you claim to hear the difference between
>$100 and $1000 interconnects, but not the distortion in a vinyl recording.
Ok Douglas, here's your mission. Find one post *ever* where I claim
to hear differences between cables. Just one. Ever. Maybe Stewart's
*suggestion* that I made such claims had an influence on your thinking?
I believe that the only thing that will be discovered is that Stewart was
applying a slight spin...
>Checking........I still have a penis.
That's good, I guess. Unless you're a woman.
>Although I suspect you'll call me a
>"dickless fuck" nonetheless.
You get two guesses.
>Oh, and I do know a few things about vinyl too.
Like what? (other than what you already said )
>Douglas not arny
Looks better as one word..."Douglasnotarny". See? Has
a nice ring to it.
teebo
Fear3000
>fear...@aol.com (Fear3000) writes:
>>Let me add that there's nothing easier to screw up, then the setup of
>> a TT. Couple that with sub-par record maintanence and
>>poorly designed components, and the sound tends to be very
>>poor even when compared to the CD.
>That's a standard cop-out.
Not at all.
>I've heard the Rockport Sirius set up by
>Andy Payor himself, and while quite magnificent, it still suffered the
>inevitable *and audible* problems caused by having to play vinyl
>records.
I've never asserted that vinyl was problem free; naturally, some records will
have a bit of "personality", a record pressed off center will have very audible
wow (I have about a dozen of those), and some pressings of the same title sound
*much* better than others. Those problems do not exclusive to the LP, or most
LPs, if well cared for and played.
In my system I get an occational click, and some pressings can sound a bit
"gritty", but most sound just great! I must say; however, no LP I've heard to
date had the unnatural and irratating sonic qualities of the CD, which have
plagued the format from it's start.
Best Wishes,
Fear3000
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Edward M. Shain <Vizsl...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> No, Arny, that's not a fair comment. Anybody who's ever had
>experience with a good rig for records, knows that it's capable of
>producing stunning music.
medium is better for some things, BASED MOSTLY ON THE RECORDING
ENGINEERING and production.
> That's apart from arguments about which measures better, and
>even apart from the relative comparison of cd to lp, which is a matter
>of preference.
Measurement is independent of preference. Who claimed otherwise?
(Well, somebody could CHOOSE to prefer that which measures best,
indeed, but that's still a preference)
> If one is being honest, on an absolute standard, good analog
>rigs with a good lp reproduce beautiful music in a wonderfully
>pleasing way on its own terms, and no one should have to defend that
>statement. Hell, we all loved our records when there was no
>replacement for them.
But who's denying that? You did still have the snap crackle
and wow, didn't you? It's nice to be rid of those, too.
It seems to me that some of the vinylphiles here are simply unwilling
to accept others contrary preferences. I think perhaps others
opinions have hardened as a result, hence the current tsuris.
--
Copyright j...@research.att.com 1998, all rights reserved, except transmission
by USENET and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any
use by a provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this
article and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Andrew Thibault <teeb...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>Listening beats measuring every time. And you know this.
of LISTENING TESTS in this newsgroup.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Andrew Thibault <teeb...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>I don't need to provide a technical explanation. The proof is in the
>listening.
>When I listen, vinyl sounds better. It's that simple.
Nobody can argue with that.
But you can't extend the idea from 'to you' to anything more inclusive.
It's preference. It's yours. It's personal. Period.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Andrew Thibault <teeb...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>My claim still stands about inaudible wear.
>I notice that you haven't touched it.............
a part of the mechanical process.
Period.
There's no substance to refute in your claim about inaudible
wear.
Nexus 6
> Sheeesh!! First I agree with Howie, now I agree with
>Arny.......hmmmmm........has Euthanasia been made legal yet?
In the Netherlands, yes.
>
> ::sigh::
>
>Forgive me, Teebo ::weeps piteously::
There, there.......
<pat, pat>
---
Nexus 6
--- "Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it?
That's what it means to be a slave."
Michael Snider
trotsky wrote in message <36924081...@mc.net>...
>Who said I was surprised? Your limited use of the language fails you once
again.
>Here are some more accurate adjectives for you: appalled, sickened,
disgusted,
>nauseated, horrified, aghast.
If you are going to accuse someone of limited language facilities, perhaps
you should make sure your command of the language is beyond reproach. All
of the "adjectives" you supplied are actually verbs, save for "aghast."
Michael Snider
Andrew Thibault
Edward M. Shain <Vizsl...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3692aa81...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
>On Tue, 5 Jan 1999 22:26:04 GMT, j...@research.att.com (jj, curmudgeon
>and tiring philalethist) wrote:
>
>
>>It seems to me that some of the vinylphiles here are simply unwilling
>>to accept others contrary preferences. I think perhaps others
>>opinions have hardened as a result, hence the current tsuris.
>
>much t'other way 'round: that it's vinylphiles who have been under
>attack for their choice, and bludgeoned by the blunderbus of
>measurements.
Thank you for stating it better than I can, Ed. I'm tired of sneering
people that, whether they realize it or not, have a very strange
attitude about those of us that prefer vinyl. Read between the
lines and often there is an upturned nose with the perjorative
accustion "well, if you _like_distortion then vinyl is fine, and BTW,
your preference for "distortion" makes you a Luddite, or worse
yet, an idiot". I don't (for the most part) critisise personal preference;
why is it so difficult for the people with an anti-vinyl bias?
Andrew Thibault
>>>However, he *does* make a pretty good point, no? :-)
>>
>>No, not really. :-|
>
>And why not? I can easily hear most of the inherent problems of vinyl,
>even on the best rigs, but I can seldom hear differences among cables.
>How come the LP lovers claim not to hear those problems - but often
>*do* claim to hear cable differences?
Are you claiming that I have ever said such a thing about cables?
If so, please provide a DejaNews reference - I'd like to see it.
Otherwise, it sounds like a spin to me.
One other thing, and correct me if I'm wrong.
(like you need prompting...)
Aren't you the one that said the best sound at last summer's London
Hi-Fi show was from vinyl? Were there no CD players? Or were they
all "broken"?
teebo
********************************************
Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk.
That will teach you to keep your mouth shut.
--Ernest Hemingway
Dave
<teeb...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
>Dave <_jt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:3696637c...@news.elnet.com...
>>On Tue, 5 Jan 1999 13:01:19 -0500, "Andrew Thibault"
>><teeb...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Although I contend that wear is a non-issue per my earlier post,
>>>rendering the point of transferring LP's to CD-R moot, this is an
>>>opinion group and if that's your opinion, well, OK. (even though
>>>some here will not grant you that right unless they can insult you
>>>at the same time....you know who you are ;-)
>>
>>As if your contention that there is no audible distortion on vinyl is
>>not bad enough. Now you ae saying that vinyl does not wear! hehe
>>I suppose if you took a microscope and compared the before and after
>>of a record being played 1 time let alone 5 or 6 there would be no
>>difference.
>
>Who cares what you see under the microscope? Is that how you
>listen to records? NO! What we are concerned with is audibility.
>If you would actually read my earlier post, you would see that my
>claim is not that LP's don't wear, but that with good equipment and
>correct setup wear is minimised to such a degree as to be inaudible.
>
>If you can't read or you can't comprehend what you read, just say so!
>I won't think any less of you (as if that's possible...).
>
I can read what you wrote just fine. You said wear is a non issue
with regards to audible distortion. The fact is wear on vinyl will
become audible. So the only way for wear never to be audible is for
their to absolutely no wear. Since wear is cumulative there would
have to be no wear ever or else it will eventually become audible.
Edward M. Shain
and tiring philalethist) wrote:
>It seems to me that some of the vinylphiles here are simply unwilling
>to accept others contrary preferences. I think perhaps others
>opinions have hardened as a result, hence the current tsuris.
No doubt opinions have hardened, though I would have said it
much t'other way 'round: that it's vinylphiles who have been under
attack for their choice, and bludgeoned by the blunderbus of
measurements.
We're probably in 100% agreement here, JJ. I only have a
quarrel with those who would impeach other people's preferences. I can
offer 3,41 arguments why I think cd's are a superior medium for the
storage and retrieval of music but none of those reasons (which I
absolutely accept and believe in) can erase what is also palpably
true: that good analog rigs can produce wonderful, soul-satisfying
music without reference or comparison to any other medium.
Ed
Arny Krüger
Andrew Thibault wrote in message
>>
>>Andrew Thibault wrote in message
>>>
>>
>>>No flames (at least not from me - yet). Would you consider DAL SC-Is to be
>>>a speaker that has increased response in the upper-midrange?
>>
>>As always, depends on the room, placement in the room, and listener
>location.
>
>IOW, these speakers, in the context of this thread, make your argument
>very weak
IOW, you are having yet another attack of meglomania...
Please reply when you understand 2 things:
(1) Speakers sound mostly like the rooms they are in.
(2) The sound of vinyl is strongly related to the geometry of the groove.
Arny Krüger
Fear3000 wrote in message <19990105150019...@ng24.aol.com>...
>>From: "Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net>
>
>>Curtis Leeds wrote
>
>>>That's a silly little prejudicial remark. Many vinylphiles -
>>>perhaps even most - value measurements.
>
>>Not Thibault and Fear3000.
>
>Thanks for speaking for me ;-)
>
>I value measurements a great deal; I just don't consider them to be the
>deciding factor in the "goodness" of a component, nor can measurements alone
>predict the performance of that component.
>[I thought we were clear on this ]
In short you vastly undervalue measurements.
When you try to correct someone, next time say something meaningfully
different than they did. ;-)
Arny Krüger
Andrew Thibault wrote in message
>>
>>Curtis Leeds wrote in message <36924D5E...@idt.net>...
>>>"Arny Krüger" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Of course, since most vinylphiles don't believe in measurements or
>>equalizers,
>>>> and think the world revolves around vinyl, they'll never figure this
>out.
>>>>
>>>> I point this out several on Usenet times a year, and I'm bracing for the
>>usual
>>>> flames.
>>>
>>>That's a silly little prejudicial remark. Many vinylphiles -
>>>perhaps even most - value measurements.
>>
>>Not Thibault and Fear3000.
>
Hardly. I'm glad that both you and Thibault confirmed my claim - posturing to
the contrary not withstanding.
Since you believe that the sound of records is independent of the (measurable)
geometry of the grooves, exactly where do you think the signal is stored?
Venus, Mars or your navel?
Arny Krüger
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist wrote in message ...
>In article <76trvr$go0$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>,
>Andrew Thibault <teeb...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>>Listening beats measuring every time. And you know this.
>What an absurd think to say to one of the most vocal proponents
>of LISTENING TESTS in this newsgroup.
Since properly done measurements confirm properly done listening tests, and
theeasurements take less time and effort to do, if its possible to do them, I
prefer them. The ultimate value of a measurement is how it agrees with what we
hear.
Fortunately, the relationship between measurements of vinyl and what we hear
from vinyl is not the mystery that Thibault and Fear3000 make it out to be.
Thibault and Fear3000 like to isolate themselves in this little world where
things that measure bad, like vinyl, sound good to everybody they approve of.
In their little world, if you think that you don't like the audible distortion
and noise of vinyl, you either have bad ears or have not heard their mythical
vinyl setups that magically erase the distortion and noise that reliable
listening tests and measurements show is part and parcel of the vinyl world.
If you tell Thibault and Fear3000 that vinyl measures bad, they say the fault
is with the measurements.
They can't fathom the idea that convention and preference can cause some
people to think they prefer dirty sound over clean sound.
I don't have any problems with Thibault and Fear3000's preference for vinyl.
I do have problems with their slamming of science and people who don't prefer
vinyl.
Arny Krüger
Fear3000 wrote in message <19990105151136...@ng22.aol.com>...
>>From: "Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net>
>
>>Fear3000 wrote [to Dave]:
>
>Dave:
>>>>I have listened to quality TTs so your point is moot.
>
>>> with actions in the last few weeks, I simply don't believe you.
>
>Arny:
>>Then why bother responding?
>
>Boy, now I know I'm on your hit list <g>. I thought the answer was
>self-evident in the body of the original post.
>
>BTW, shouldn't that have been a question you may have wanted to ask
*yourself*
>_before_ posting?
>
I don't think you get it. Convincing you is not the object. Giving you the
opportunity to say weird things, which you seem very willing to do, is. Keep
on truckin'! ;-)
Arny Krüger
Edward M. Shain wrote in message
<369285ee...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>On Tue, 05 Jan 1999 20:05:10 GMT, "Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net>
>wrote:
>
>
>>It shows that some vinylphiles, such as you, are motivated by ideology, not
>>good sound.
>
>experience with a good rig for records, knows that it's capable of
>producing stunning music.
I agree that vinyl is capable of producing stunning music. However, that is
not a unique ability of vinyl.
> That's apart from arguments about which measures better, and
>even apart from the relative comparison of cd to lp, which is a matter
>of preference.
However, Fear3000 and Thibault are not arguing that their preference for vinyl
is just their personal preference. They freely slander people who don't prefer
it.
> If one is being honest, on an absolute standard, good analog
>rigs with a good lp reproduce beautiful music in a wonderfully
>pleasing way on its own terms, and no one should have to defend that
>statement. Hell, we all loved our records when there was no
>replacement for them.
Actually, my relationship with records was always love/hate. Had something to
do with lots of experience with 2 track 7.5 ips open reel, and also studio
masters at 15 ips. The hate side intensified the first time I heard some good
digital done on a PCM-F1.
> Beyond that, there are pleasures in the gear itself. A
>beautiful turntable is a thing of beauty. So is a magnificent
>tone-arm. Analog can offer a thoroughly satisfying and seductive
>experience.
I really liked the techno-beauty of my vinyl rig. However, it was very easy to
scrap when I got my CD player and a decent library of discs. For me the
decider was the fact that CD has so much less flutter and wow. I really like
the sound of nice, steady piano notes.
> Relishing such joys is not an ideological experience. It is a
>wonderfully musical one.
It can be that. However, Thibault and Fear3000, particularly Thibault, are
pushing a flase ideology - that CD's have to sound harsh, that vinyl always
sounds better, and that vinyl is not subject to audible wear.
Arny Krüger
Andrew Thibault wrote in message
>>
>>Andrew Thibault wrote in message
>>
>>>Who cares what you see under the microscope? Is that how you listen to
>>records? NO!
>>
>
>>
>>spent any time talking to a mastering engineer. If you ever do, check out
>the
>>microscope they almost always have kicking around and ask what its for...
>
>My claim still stands about inaudible wear.
>I notice that you haven't touched it.............
Cutting all its legs off works for me!
Hey, if you think that vinyl never wears out, then fine. If you think it has
no audible distortion, then fine. If you think it has no audible noise, then
fine.
If you like being laughed at by the vast majority of everybody who has
experience with vinyl, then fine.
Arny Krüger
Andrew Thibault wrote in message
>>
>>Andrew Thibault wrote in message
>>>The top-notch rig that you claim to have heard, although decent, is
>>>_far_ from top notch. Others that claim to have heard a top quality
>>>rig have their ears deafened by their own anti-vinyl rhetoric.
>>
>>
>
>So the truth is a cop out? GMAB...
Its not the truth, but you don't know it, so I'm not gonna call you a liar.
>>Same rhetoric we get from people who think every amplifier
>>sounds different, every cable sounds different, etc., etc.
>
>Oh...I see. You're losing the argument, so you need to make
>a cute little strawman. I've got news for you, Arniii - this is not
>about electronics sounding different.
That's right, its about vinyl having audible distortion and noise, and CD
being relatively free of the same. I'm enjoying being on the "sounds better"
side of the argument for a change!
>
>>The fact that vinyl always has audible distortion is scientifically proven.
>>You need to read all the AES papers about the refinements that were put on
>>vinyl, and how limited their success was, by modern standards.
>
>
>I don't need to read ANYTHING. The proof is in the listening and vinyl sounds
better.
Hey if you prefer noise and distortion over clean sound, no skin off my nose.
>>The fact that the basic CD technology is pretty darn close to being audibly
>>perfect is scientifically proven, too.
>
>Oh really? What about that persistent midrange/upper-midrange glare
>that CD has? You still don't have a satisfactory answer to that one.
Since you don't believe that rooms, speaker placement, and listener location
are important constituents of loudspeaker sound; and that geometry of the
groove is where records store information about sound, there is very little I
can do to help you.
>>
>>Furhtermore, if you would come up with a digital transcription of your
>>"Golden" turntable playing a good test record, I'd prove it to you.
>
>And I'll ask you for the third time today: what possible use could I have
> for a digital transcription device? You still don't have a decent
explanation
>for that, either.
Others have already agreed with my explanation of your use for a digtial
transcription device. Hey, I can lead the horse to water, I can't make him
drink!
>>No way am I going to buy a turntable to help you see the light.
>Furthermore,
>>its clear that any turntable I lined up to test would get the same
>>posture-matic response from you.
>Since your hearing is so muffled by your ideology, you couldn't/wouldn't
>admit that it sounded good anyway. So I think that it's rather pointless,
>don't you?
If by some miracle you could prove to me that vinyl is not as distorted as it
was the last time I checked it out, I would take another listen to it.
However, you don't have the courage of your convictions to put your claims up
to an objective test, so that's that.
>>So, just enjoy all that harshness, clicks and pops! Those of us who prefer
>to
>>listen to music, not noise will be over here with our CD's.
>That statement tells me all I need to know about your familiarity (or lack
of...)
>with a decent TT. Enjoy your midrange glare of CD!
Midrange glare is just a frequency response situation. Controlling frequency
response is a solved problem in the more civilized portions of the audio
world, such as where I live.
>>I just hope you see the light and start transcribing your vinyl to CD before
>>the grooves are gone!
>I've commented on the wear issue earlier today. You haven't responded.
I have, 4 times now. You seem to think that musical information is not stored
in groove geometry. If you are that mislead, I can't help you!