RFD: uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:20:30 +0100, Dave J.
wrote:

In inside of
uk.net.news.config, 'Stewart Pinkerton' wrote:

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.

Firstly, there's no evidence of *any* deterioration of pressed CDs,
aside from a small batch from a couple of plants in the early years.
Difficult to say the same for any LP that's actually been played.

I seem to remember that they had a predicted lifespan of 10 years, on
the 'new improved' ones. ICvwBW.

I have a couple of dozen 20-year old ones which look (and play) like
new. Can't say the same for some of my vinyl! :-)

I was thinking of writables which given the rarety of vinyl cutting
machinery was hardly fair.
ISTR something about a vulnerability to UV as well.

I don't store 'em in the sun! CD-R is certainly a less permanent
medium than a pressed CD.

Not into a debate, certainly not here. You could very well be right.


Secondly, the only TT that ever managed non-contact playing of LPs
suffered from some pretty severe problems, not least of which is that
vinyl is *designed* to use a high-pressure contact replay method, so
the output from the Finial didn't sound that great - even before your
speaker cones were blown out by a piece of dust that a stylus would
have swept out of the way!

I've seen a demonstration of one that seemed to play a scratched
battered old LP perfectly, and whose accuracy of reproduction was
vouched for by specialists, so I think you may be wrong there.

I believe a recent re-incarnation of the Finial had intensive digital
filtration to handle the old scratch and dust problems. Question -
does that still count as an analogue player?

I'd be very interested in any study on the effect of the elasticity of
the vinyl on the reading of the groove. Not something I'd ever thought
of.

You also have the problem of Dynagroove records, which were
pre-distorted to compensate for the use of a spherical replay stylus
as opposed to the chisel shape of the cutter.

To Paul, didn't notice if mentioned elsewhere, but the idea involves
the use of laser light to read the groove.

Yup, been around for a while. I'm not sure if it's on sale again, or
if it also bombed second time round.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

RFD: uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

On 2 Jul 2003 19:19:28 GMT, (Chris Croughton)
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.

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?

It did, if you call $20,000 'commercial'! I'm not sure if it's still
on sale, but it was a reincarnation of the old Finial.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

RFD: uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

In inside of
uk.net.news.config, 'Stewart Pinkerton' wrote:

I believe a recent re-incarnation of the Finial had intensive digital
filtration to handle the old scratch and dust problems. Question -
does that still count as an analogue player?

In my opinion, no.

I'm suprised at the motivation you specify for the digitisation
because I thought one of the main advantages was that the laser system
didn't really 'notice' scratches unless they were deep (iow wide). I
can see how dust could be a problem, though I'd have thought less so
if using an infra red laser.

Dave J.

RFD: uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

In article ,
Dave J. wrote:
A *good* quality
system is the one with clean midrange and none of this ludicrous
(monosodium glutamate as I call it) pre-emphasis of top and bottom.

The test of someone's 'glorious' 500W hifi system is to turn it down
to a whisper and see how it sounds. Most will lose definition and
clarity and some will even disappear into the noise floor.

Absolutely. One of the most stringent tests of a system is to reproduce
well recorded male speech at a realistic level naturally. And *very* few
will. But don't even try if it's off vinyl, because then nothing will.

--
*Would a fly without wings be called a walk?

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

RFD: uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

In article , Don Pearce
writes
On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 17:08:13 +0100, Richard Ashton
wrote:

In uk.net.news.config on Thu, 03 Jul 2003 14:00:39 +0100, Dave Plowman
wrote:

}In article ,
} Dave J. wrote:
} A *good* quality
} system is the one with clean midrange and none of this ludicrous
} (monosodium glutamate as I call it) pre-emphasis of top and bottom.
}
} The test of someone's 'glorious' 500W hifi system is to turn it down
} to a whisper and see how it sounds. Most will lose definition and
} clarity and some will even disappear into the noise floor.
}
} Absolutely. One of the most stringent tests of a system is to reproduce
}well recorded male speech at a realistic level naturally. And *very* few
}will. But don't even try if it's off vinyl, because then nothing will.

Bull****. I still have the vinyl of Gerrard Hoffnung's address to the Oxford
Union in 1957, a magnificent recording and the funniest record ever made.

{R}

I don't think you have quite grasped Dave's point. Magnificence and
humour have nothing to do with it - indeed magnificence is a mark of
failure.

The point is to reproduce a male voice at sufficient quality to
convince an eyes-closed listener that there is a real person present
in the room and not a Hi Fi. That clearly can't be done with a
recorded "performance" however special.

I have heard it just about done with an anechoic recording through
Quad electrostatics, and even that wasn't 100% perfect. It is
absolutely impossible with vinyl. Surface noise will always be heard
in the spaces between words, however well the recording is made -
simple fact of life, I'm afraid.

d

_____________________________

http://www.pearce.uk.com

Don's right about that surface noise. Its quite amazing just how quiet
it has to be to do a single voice...

Having tried it a while ago with a AKG capacitor mike and Quad speakers
and a Studer B67 with no noise reduction...
--
Tony Sayer

RFD: uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:50:10 +0100, Dave J.
wrote:

In inside of
uk.net.news.config, 'Stewart Pinkerton' wrote:

I believe a recent re-incarnation of the Finial had intensive digital
filtration to handle the old scratch and dust problems. Question -
does that still count as an analogue player?

In my opinion, no.

I'm suprised at the motivation you specify for the digitisation
because I thought one of the main advantages was that the laser system
didn't really 'notice' scratches unless they were deep (iow wide). I
can see how dust could be a problem, though I'd have thought less so
if using an infra red laser.

How pray is a laser beam supposed to tell the difference between a
scratch and a groove modulation? Also, I believe that rocks (small
rocks, of course!) reflect IR just as well as they reflect visible
light.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

RFD: uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

Richard Ashton wrote:
In uk.net.news.config on Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:55:47 +0100, Dave J.
wrote:

}In inside of
}uk.net.news.config, 'Richard Ashton' wrote:
}
}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.
}
}Midrange, to my ear that's the important one.
}
}So long as the signal is rounded off to match the range of the tops +
}the woofers they don't impinge much on my enjoyment. A *good* quality
}system is the one with clean midrange and none of this ludicrous
}(monosodium glutamate as I call it) pre-emphasis of top and bottom.
}
}The test of someone's 'glorious' 500W hifi system is to turn it down
}to a whisper and see how it sounds. Most will lose definition and
}clarity and some will even disappear into the noise floor.

You are talking to the owner of a pair of 1970's Quad electostatic speakers
and matching Quad 2 amps, preamps mixer etc.

Sorry to butt into this thread but, you lucky git :-) I always wanted
some of those electrostatic speakers. Do they sound *really* good?


Before I was married these were my pride and joy, to be listened to in a
windowless room with egg boxes stuck to the wall and heavy velvet curtain
drapes.

Now I have a 1980's Technics "stack", it was crap when I bought it but not as
crap as modern systems.

Some modern systems I've heard sound pretty good but I don't have the
£1000000000000000 spare that they cost. My system cost about £2000 and
continually disappoints me.


The only real music is live music.

Absolutely.

I'll go back to sticking my oar into the aaisp and firebrick threads...

Gareth

RFD: uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

In inside of
uk.net.news.config, 'Richard Ashton' wrote:

}The test of someone's 'glorious' 500W hifi system is to turn it down
}to a whisper and see how it sounds. Most will lose definition and
}clarity and some will even disappear into the noise floor.

You are talking to the owner of a pair of 1970's Quad electostatic speakers
and matching Quad 2 amps, preamps mixer etc.

Only system I've ever seen that passed the above test used Quad
monoblocks, only problem from my pov was that the owner didn't believe
in anything except (so called) 'flat' response, and so no treble/bass
controls.

Wish I could remember the make of speakers he used, chest high
beauties, the most 'inaudible' speakers I've yet to come across.
iyswim.



--
Dave J. - Back from the grey netherworld..

RFD: uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

In article , Gareth Jayne
writes
Richard Ashton wrote:
In uk.net.news.config on Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:55:47 +0100, Dave J.
wrote:

}In inside of
}uk.net.news.config, 'Richard Ashton' wrote:
}
}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.
}
}Midrange, to my ear that's the important one.
}
}So long as the signal is rounded off to match the range of the tops +
}the woofers they don't impinge much on my enjoyment. A *good* quality
}system is the one with clean midrange and none of this ludicrous
}(monosodium glutamate as I call it) pre-emphasis of top and bottom.
}
}The test of someone's 'glorious' 500W hifi system is to turn it down
}to a whisper and see how it sounds. Most will lose definition and
}clarity and some will even disappear into the noise floor.

You are talking to the owner of a pair of 1970's Quad electostatic speakers
and matching Quad 2 amps, preamps mixer etc.

Sorry to butt into this thread but, you lucky git :-) I always wanted
some of those electrostatic speakers. Do they sound *really* good?

Yes if you operate them within what they can do. There're not loud and
they don't produce boom box bass. They are very transparent though, and
are good at not getting in the way of the audio.

You can stack a pair to get some extra oomph, but not a lot...
--
Tony Sayer

RFD: uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

In article ,
Don Pearce wrote:
The point is to reproduce a male voice at sufficient quality to
convince an eyes-closed listener that there is a real person present
in the room and not a Hi Fi. That clearly can't be done with a
recorded "performance" however special.

I have heard it just about done with an anechoic recording through
Quad electrostatics, and even that wasn't 100% perfect. It is
absolutely impossible with vinyl. Surface noise will always be heard
in the spaces between words, however well the recording is made -
simple fact of life, I'm afraid.

What mic did you use? I agree about the choice of speaker, though. And
something like a 4038 (PGS) ribbon, as most modern mics have a mid and top
range boost.

--
*Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.*

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn