RFD: uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:15:53 +0100, Julian Fowler
wrote:

On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:42:32 +0100, Dave J.
wrote:

In inside of
uk.net.news.config, 'Chris Croughton' wrote:

Which is a pity, since analogue equipment
is a lot "lower tech" and has tended to change format a lot slower than
digital formats (and so is more "future-proof" -- it will still be
trivial to build something to play an LP in 100 years time[1], just as
we can still read books hand-scribed a thousand years ago, but decoding
a CD containing MP3 format data may well be a lost art by then).


Vinyl recordings also degrade much less quickly than (current) CDs and
it is perfectly possible to play them without physical contact, thus
removing the 'wear and tear' element.

Maybe so, but I don't *think* that, without any specialized equipment,
I can make perfect copies of a vinyl record and store this in a
lossless, compressed form with in-built checksums :-)

Well, a PC with a decent soundcard is hardly 'specialised', is it?

It should also be noted that with non-esoteric equipment, the odds of
a vinyl recording being degraded over a 10 year period as a result of
periodic playing are *far* higher than with a CD.

Actually, even with 'esoteric' equipment.

How quickly do you think that CDs "degrade"? Apart from a small
number (=2 from memory) in my collection that suffered from "CD rot",
I believe that the oldest CDs that I own (purchased in 1986) will play
just as well as they did the day they were purchased.

Yup, my 1983 'Love Over Gold' is still one of my best CDs. My
Sheffield Lab LPs from the late '70s do have the odd 'tick' however,
and a couple of them got scratched. :-(
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

RFD: uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:03:41 +0100, Dave Plowman
wrote:

In article . 39,
MrBitsy wrote:
It isn't and its exactly why the vinyl group is required. I want to be
able to express my satisfaction in a perticulare piece of music without
have to read a debate on the use of the word 'better'. CD is better by
the numbers. Vinyl is better by the sound.

Think you'll soon get tired of patting one another on the back...

Oh, I dunno - think of all the wonderful fights over solid vs
suspended chassis, MC vs MM, belt-drive vs DD, pivoted vs parallel
arms, unipivots vs gimbals, elliptical vs line-contact etc etc.......

It should get down and dirty in no time! :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

RFD: uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

Message-ID: from Stewart Pinkerton
contained the following:

Oh, I dunno - think of all the wonderful fights over solid vs
suspended chassis, MC vs MM, belt-drive vs DD, pivoted vs parallel
arms, unipivots vs gimbals, elliptical vs line-contact etc etc.......

Don't forget 'monster cable'. Never could quite figure out how the
transmission of just a few watts would require cable capable of delivering
power to a small factory but there you go.

--
Geoff Berrow
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/

RFD: uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:42:32 +0100, Dave J.
wrote:

In inside of
uk.net.news.config, 'Chris Croughton' wrote:

Which is a pity, since analogue equipment
is a lot "lower tech" and has tended to change format a lot slower than
digital formats (and so is more "future-proof" -- it will still be
trivial to build something to play an LP in 100 years time[1], just as
we can still read books hand-scribed a thousand years ago, but decoding
a CD containing MP3 format data may well be a lost art by then).

Vinyl recordings also degrade much less quickly than (current) CDs and
it is perfectly possible to play them without physical contact, thus
removing the 'wear and tear' element.

I was thinking that I had seen somewhere a machine reading vinyl with
laser which was designed to not harm the substrate. Does it exist
commercially?

(Theoretically it could be done with high frequency ultrasound
transducers as well.)

Chris C

RFD: uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:33:49 +0100, Nick Gorham
wrote:

I think the point he is making, is the same one you would have trying to
read data from a 8" floppy disk now. While it would be simple to create
something that would play a LP. it would be harder to do that from
scratch with a CD.

But you don't want to start by scratching it! g

Chris C

RFD: uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:47:36 GMT, Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

One man's vice is another man's versa.............

Ooh, that one I will pinch as a .sig line if you don't object!

Chris C

RFD: uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

A certain Richard Ashton, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :
Quantization noise and sampling analogue waveforms have no effect at all on
reproduction quality I suppose.

Quantization noise is pretty negligible compared with the rake of
problems associated with LP based reproduction - I'd challenge anyone to
detect it blindfolded.

--

"Jokes mentioning ducks were considered particularly funny." - cnn.com

RFD: uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
Think you'll soon get tired of patting one another on the back...

Oh, I dunno - think of all the wonderful fights over solid vs
suspended chassis, MC vs MM, belt-drive vs DD, pivoted vs parallel
arms, unipivots vs gimbals, elliptical vs line-contact etc etc.......

It should get down and dirty in no time! :-)

Pity then they didn't discuss such things on here as they are still of
interest.

--
*Pride is what we have. Vanity is what others have.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

RFD: uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Richard Ashton" wrote in message

In uk.net.news.config on Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:26:00 +0100, Chesney
Christ wrote:

}A certain Stewart Pinkerton, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :
}
} Think you'll soon get tired of patting one another on the back...
}
}Oh, I dunno - think of all the wonderful fights over solid vs
}suspended chassis, MC vs MM, belt-drive vs DD, pivoted vs parallel
}arms, unipivots vs gimbals, elliptical vs line-contact etc
etc....... }

}Then there's all the fun with RIAA equalization, removing large
amounts }of the bass and treble component of the recorded work (just
to make it }playable), different degrees of compression depending on
how close to }the centre of the vinyl you are, heavy across-the-board
compression to }get the fine sound detail above the built-in noise
floor.. yup isn't it }great!

Quantization noise and sampling analogue waveforms have no effect at
all on reproduction quality I suppose.

16 bit quantization noise is about 30 dB smaller than the various noises
that afflict vinyl, giving vinyl as much advantage as possible.

If you ****wits concentrated on the speakers where the real problems
are then the rest of the arguments are lost in the noise. Which is
where they belong.

Speakers and rooms are quite the nightmare, but vinyl is not that far
behind.

RFD: uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Ronnie McKinley" wrote in
message
In uk.net.news.config Richard Ashton wrote:

The vinyl enthusiast might say, the speakers are the least important
in the audio chain, and within any budget, with a front end vinyl
source, then the biggest proportion of that budget should be spent on
the TT/ARM/CARTRIGE, getting the best front end one can afford, and
until the front end is as 'best ' as it can be, then money spent on
'high-end' speakers are just a waste of time.

Which is considerably bass-ackwards. You can't spend enough money of
TT/Arm/Cartridge to get sound quality potential that can be favorably
mentioned when compared to a ca. $100 CDP.

The digi-geeks, usually hold a different (opposite) point of view.
Because (they claim) all 'descent' CDP (and amplifiers) should sound
exactly the same ie: no audible difference whatsoever.

More significantly, a ca. $100 CDP places the burden for quality on the
other parts of the system. And what pray tell, does $100 spent on vinyl
playback do?