In message , Jim Lesurf
writes
If you were willing to use 'LP's that were much larger, were made of a more
expensive material by a more costly process[1], and did not play for very
long per side, you could expect to get better results. But I wonder how
many people would wish to bother... :-)

Slainte,

Jim


Bring back the cylinder! Linear tracking from the start.
--
Chris Morriss

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 08:01:14 +0000 (UTC), "RobH"
wrote:

Given that technology has move on a bit since the record player (and the
CD player!) were developed, would it be possible to product a domestic
_analogue_ audio system which is better quality than those which
currently exist?

They already exists in the form of 'hi-fi' video sound and FM radio.


--
Chris Isbell
Southampton
UK

In article ,
Graeme Nattress wrote:
Or why not 2" tape for the home?

All tape width does is help with the sig noise ratio a bit. But full
track 2" would suffer from weave and HF cancellation. It's not by chance
that 1/2 track on 1/4" became the de facto standard regardless of the
number of tracks.

Tape is also decidedly non linear in its transfer characteristic. You
could use video technology and put the audio on an FM carrier using a high
tape to head speed to get round this, but this brings other problems.

--
*For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
High speed, half track, magnetic tape. The last generation of analog mag
tape equipment was almost sonically perfect, and met or came close to
most if not all of your goals.

I'd agree it's pretty good especially with Dolby SR, but still can't
approach a good digital system. It still has an audible effect on some
transients recorded at realistic levels to obtain a decent sig noise ratio.

--
*Few women admit their age; fewer men act it.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

"Chris Isbell" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 08:01:14 +0000 (UTC), "RobH"
wrote:

Given that technology has move on a bit since the record player (and
the
CD player!) were developed, would it be possible to product a
domestic
_analogue_ audio system which is better quality than those which
currently exist?

They already exists in the form of 'hi-fi' video sound and FM radio.


These days FM radio is very poor example of an analogue system because
most of the audio sources that are broadcast are digital in origin e.g.
CD, DAT, hard disk playback systems and even MDs. Live performances such
as those from the Albert Hall are shipped around using NICAM. The BBC
still occasionally play records though.

Don't enough about "hi-fi video sound" to comment much, but aren't most
NICAM or PCM?



--
RobH
The future's dim, the future's mono.

"Dave Plowman" wrote in message


In article ,

Arny Krueger wrote:
High speed, half track, magnetic tape. The last generation of analog
mag tape equipment was almost sonically perfect, and met or came
close to most if not all of your goals.

I'd agree it's pretty good especially with Dolby SR, but still can't
approach a good digital system. It still has an audible effect on some
transients recorded at realistic levels to obtain a decent sig noise
ratio.

Agreed. But compared to vinyl...

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 08:01:14 +0000 (UTC), "RobH"
wrote:

Given that technology has move on a bit since the record player (and
the CD player!) were developed, would it be possible to product a
domestic _analogue_ audio system which is better quality than those
which currently exist?

This imagined system, at the very least, must have:-

* flat response (none of this RIAA curve stuff)
* better dynamic range (at least 20 dB higher than vinyl)
* better S/N ratio
* less distortion i.e. no pitch variations, rumble, surface noise
etc

and probably a few others than I've not thought of.

Nice to haves would be durability and convenience but let's not get
our hopes up.

Basically, you have carte blanche and this imagined system does not
need to be backwardly compatible with any analogue format.

How do you do it?

It's called a Revox B77...

Good choice.

BTW, S/N ratio and dynamic range are the same thing.

True but...

SNR and dynamic range are used interchangeably in classic technical &
theoretical literature, but they can have different practical meanings in a
modern audio testing context.

There are three (actually five or 10 or more including sub-plots) situations
that are relevant:

(1) Determine maximum undistorted output. Determine noise level with nothing
being recorded. Take the ratio.

(2) Determine maximum undistorted output. Determine noise level with that
signal being recorded. Take the ratio. Note: "noise" may be variously
interpreted as just random noise or as all non-signal related output which
includes the results of nonlinear distortion.

(3) Determine maximum undistorted output. Measure residual noise with a
signal 60 dB lower than maximum undistorted output being recorded. Take the
ratio and add 60 dB. Note: "noise" may be variously interpreted as just
random noise or as all non-signal related output.

Additional popular subplots relate to the means for setting the reference
point for "maximum undistorted output" bringing the possible permutations up
to 10 or more.

The classic technical & theoretical meaning of SNR & Dynamic Range is
probably closest to a broad interpretation of (2). OTOH, the answer to the
question "Is this recording going to sound noisy during the quiet passages"
is closer to a narrow interpretation of (1). (3) was probably the result of
trying to quantify the benefits of high resolution at low levels, and is
often closer to (1) than (2).

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
I'd agree it's pretty good especially with Dolby SR, but still can't
approach a good digital system. It still has an audible effect on some
transients recorded at realistic levels to obtain a decent sig noise
ratio.

Agreed. But compared to vinyl...

Heh heh. I've always preferred the distortions of tape to discs anyway.
They are more gentle to my ears.

--
*Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

RobH wrote:

Don't enough about "hi-fi video sound" to comment much, but aren't most
NICAM or PCM?

If a VHS machine has the Hifi logo on it then it means that the audio is
stored as a frequency modulated signal using the rotary heads. Yes - the
audio may get into the recorder as a digital NICAM signal but it is
converted to analogue before being recorded.

Some Hifi recorders will have stereo audio connectors and can be used
without a video signal present. They do suffer from obvious problems if
the tape is anything less than perfect.

Analogue reel to reel is probably a better format in my opinion.

Cheers.

James.

"James Perrett" wrote in message
...
RobH wrote:

Don't enough about "hi-fi video sound" to comment much, but aren't
most
NICAM or PCM?

If a VHS machine has the Hifi logo on it then it means that the audio
is
stored as a frequency modulated signal using the rotary heads. Yes -
the
audio may get into the recorder as a digital NICAM signal but it is
converted to analogue before being recorded.

Some Hifi recorders will have stereo audio connectors and can be used
without a video signal present. They do suffer from obvious problems
if
the tape is anything less than perfect.

Not having ever owned a VCR I wouldn't know what the obvious problems
are.


Analogue reel to reel is probably a better format in my opinion.

Studer/Revox/Nagra et al



--
RobH
The future's dim, the future's mono.