In article ,
Keith G wrote:
As regards sweet sounding cartridges I've still got a Decca SC4E which
I sometimes use - although my usual ones are MCs. And assuming it can
track the LP it still sounds as good as any.



OK, if you are into 'cutting', you need a Spug with a pound coin stuck
to it!! ;-)

Here's another one for your collection:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...MEWA%3AIT&rd=1

That's the type of Decca cart that only fits a Decca arm - the C4 series
are 'conventional' mounting.

--
*I don't have a license to kill, but I do have a learner's permit.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 13:12:54 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

Yes, compare the two tracks:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Don's%20Track.mp3

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/My%20Track.mp3

and see if you don't feel there's a certain amount of 'CDification' of
Don's
processed track.


I've put up a new track which has been decrackled far more lightly by
a different bit of software. See what you think.

http://81.174.169.10




OK, got that. I'll burn a 3 track disk later and compare on the main
system - too subtle for the computer system.

Meantime, I've added it to my Show N Tell page if anybody else wants to make
the comparison:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Don's%20Track.mp3

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/My%20Track.mp3

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Don's%20Light%20Touch.mp3

Keith G wrote:
"Nick Gorham" wrote in message
...

Don Pearce wrote:



Sounds to me like a steel drum - it has that characteristic "splat" to
the tone when it is hit harder than usual. I'm doing a quick
restoration on this one as well to see how clean it can get; it is too
crackly for me right now.

d


I would guess a sample of a drum, I doubt (though could be wrong as
always) if that could be played on actual steel drums. And there is a
almost hammond percussive click in parts as well




No, if the sleeve notes are to be believed, the drums are real ones:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Sleeve%20Notes.JPG

Well the notes say they employed a steel drum player, but listening to
some of the clips from his web site, there are no signs of the keyboard
like runs on that sample you posted

http://www.robertgreenidge.com/newcd.htm

I also note the sleeve notes list an Emulator.

Not a bit deal though (obviously)

--
Nick

In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...

It is easy enough to give a list of some reasons why an LP might sound
'different' to a CD. However before we can say "why" someone prefers
the LP we'd have to find which of those differences they may *like*.
Hence this is to a large extent a question for those who prefer LP to
explain if they do wish to know "why"...


The problem for people with a genuine preference for LP is to be able to
explain why they *think* they prefer it without resorting to 'magical
terms' like 'air', 'ambience', 'imaging', 'soundstage' &c. - all very
subjective and impossible to convey to someone who can't see it and
therefore is likely *not* to prefer CD...

Thus the problem is as I described. There is no shortage of possible
causes for audible differences, but we can't proceed beyond that
unless those who say they prefer LP are able to engage in a process
which would help establish which of them may be a factor.

Contrast that with my own situation. When I do find I 'prefer' one to the
other I can often identify a reason which could be checked or
identified in some way. e.g's being rifle shots or wow or end-of-side
distortion. ...And in some cases one version being deliberately clipped,
and the other not. :-)

And in other cases, either LP or CD may sound fine to me, but for the
various reasons I've already explained, I end up finding CD is simply
a more reliable bet for delivering the results I enjoy.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Rob wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
The CDR copies sound, to me, quite indistinguishable from the original
LPs.
You've noticed this too? ;-)

It's the one thing the vinyl fans keep clear of explaining - a CD copy of
an LP sounds identical to the LP, but an LP copy of a CD (or similar
digital master tape) doesn't. So the LP is plainly losing information in
that process - as well as adding nasties of its own.


LP-CDRs (and computer wavs, decent mp3s etc) sound slightly 'flat'
soundstage-wise, but still pretty darned excellent IME.

I would hope the technically equipped could explain why vinyl often
conjures up a highly enjoyable, and preferable to CD, listening
experience.

No they won't. Plenty of snake oil believers will, though.


Yep, agree - can't, not won't.

Rob

"Keith G" wrote



OK, got that. I'll burn a 3 track disk later and compare on the main
system - too subtle for the computer system.

Meantime, I've added it to my Show N Tell page if anybody else wants to
make the comparison:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Don's%20Track.mp3

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/My%20Track.mp3

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Don's%20Light%20Touch.mp3



OK, did that earlier and found the two 'cleaned' trax no better to listen to
than the original. (Check the bassline from about 1:27 for an idea...) There
is also an artifact crept in on the cleaned version 2 second in and another
strange little hiatus at 5 seconds in, on the Light Touch track.

At the risk of getting rocks chucked at me, I would say the 'Dons' Track
(first cleaned version) was rendered 'blunt' and dull, while the 'Light
Touch was the best track for a modern, clean 'digital' sound at the expense
of what little 'air' and depth there was in the MP3s....??

Could be me, of course, but I didn't feel the 'automatic' cleaning processes
had done the track any real favours - a laborious 'hand cleaning' would be
much better, if the track had been worth it, for 'archiving' purposes.

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 00:46:32 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Keith G" wrote



OK, got that. I'll burn a 3 track disk later and compare on the main
system - too subtle for the computer system.

Meantime, I've added it to my Show N Tell page if anybody else wants to
make the comparison:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Don's%20Track.mp3

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/My%20Track.mp3

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Don's%20Light%20Touch.mp3



OK, did that earlier and found the two 'cleaned' trax no better to listen to
than the original. (Check the bassline from about 1:27 for an idea...) There
is also an artifact crept in on the cleaned version 2 second in and another
strange little hiatus at 5 seconds in, on the Light Touch track.


Strange - for me neither of those glitches is present. And of course
there is no reason why the bass line should sound any better - it is
unaltered by crackle removal.

At the risk of getting rocks chucked at me, I would say the 'Dons' Track
(first cleaned version) was rendered 'blunt' and dull, while the 'Light
Touch was the best track for a modern, clean 'digital' sound at the expense
of what little 'air' and depth there was in the MP3s....??


Clean is not a term I could use for any of them, really. They are all
extremely distorted, though whether that is how they were recorded I
can't say.

Could be me, of course, but I didn't feel the 'automatic' cleaning processes
had done the track any real favours - a laborious 'hand cleaning' would be
much better, if the track had been worth it, for 'archiving' purposes.


For archiving I would never clean anything - all my archives are
exactly as extracted from the vinyl. I only clean the playing copy.
And yes, you are right in one thing. I hand-remove the most audible
clicks; I don't use the automatic software.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

"Don Pearce" wrote


OK, did that earlier and found the two 'cleaned' trax no better to listen
to
than the original. (Check the bassline from about 1:27 for an idea...)
There
is also an artifact crept in on the cleaned version 2 second in and
another
strange little hiatus at 5 seconds in, on the Light Touch track.


Strange - for me neither of those glitches is present.


I have burned the MP3s to an audio CDR. I cycled them in rapid succession
*many* times to confirm the glitches.


And of course
there is no reason why the bass line should sound any better - it is
unaltered by crackle removal.


Yep, I fully expected you say that.



At the risk of getting rocks chucked at me, I would say the 'Dons' Track
(first cleaned version) was rendered 'blunt' and dull, while the 'Light
Touch was the best track for a modern, clean 'digital' sound at the
expense
of what little 'air' and depth there was in the MP3s....??


Clean is not a term I could use for any of them, really. They are all
extremely distorted, though whether that is how they were recorded I
can't say.


I didn't really notice any distortion - by the time I had played the tracks
part way in so many times I was bludgeoned with it. The only time I played a
whole track was the original one to see how *bad* it was - I consider it OK
enough to hear it without a strong reaction pretty much either way...?? (Not
something I would play twice in the same year, normally....)



Could be me, of course, but I didn't feel the 'automatic' cleaning
processes
had done the track any real favours - a laborious 'hand cleaning' would be
much better, if the track had been worth it, for 'archiving' purposes.


For archiving I would never clean anything - all my archives are
exactly as extracted from the vinyl. I only clean the playing copy.
And yes, you are right in one thing.


Phew! What a relief!! :-)

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 12:28:01 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote


OK, did that earlier and found the two 'cleaned' trax no better to listen
to
than the original. (Check the bassline from about 1:27 for an idea...)
There
is also an artifact crept in on the cleaned version 2 second in and
another
strange little hiatus at 5 seconds in, on the Light Touch track.


Strange - for me neither of those glitches is present.


I have burned the MP3s to an audio CDR. I cycled them in rapid succession
*many* times to confirm the glitches.


Can you see them on the waveform view?


And of course
there is no reason why the bass line should sound any better - it is
unaltered by crackle removal.


Yep, I fully expected you say that.


I was really wondering why you might expect the bass to sound any
better - given your comment that it didn't.



At the risk of getting rocks chucked at me, I would say the 'Dons' Track
(first cleaned version) was rendered 'blunt' and dull, while the 'Light
Touch was the best track for a modern, clean 'digital' sound at the
expense
of what little 'air' and depth there was in the MP3s....??


Clean is not a term I could use for any of them, really. They are all
extremely distorted, though whether that is how they were recorded I
can't say.


I didn't really notice any distortion - by the time I had played the tracks
part way in so many times I was bludgeoned with it. The only time I played a
whole track was the original one to see how *bad* it was - I consider it OK
enough to hear it without a strong reaction pretty much either way...?? (Not
something I would play twice in the same year, normally....)



Could be me, of course, but I didn't feel the 'automatic' cleaning
processes
had done the track any real favours - a laborious 'hand cleaning' would be
much better, if the track had been worth it, for 'archiving' purposes.


For archiving I would never clean anything - all my archives are
exactly as extracted from the vinyl. I only clean the playing copy.
And yes, you are right in one thing.


Phew! What a relief!! :-)

I know - feels good, downs't it? :-)

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...

It is easy enough to give a list of some reasons why an LP might sound
'different' to a CD. However before we can say "why" someone prefers
the LP we'd have to find which of those differences they may *like*.
Hence this is to a large extent a question for those who prefer LP to
explain if they do wish to know "why"...


The problem for people with a genuine preference for LP is to be able to
explain why they *think* they prefer it without resorting to 'magical
terms' like 'air', 'ambience', 'imaging', 'soundstage' &c. - all very
subjective and impossible to convey to someone who can't see it and
therefore is likely *not* to prefer CD...

Thus the problem is as I described. There is no shortage of possible
causes for audible differences, but we can't proceed beyond that
unless those who say they prefer LP are able to engage in a process
which would help establish which of them may be a factor.


Unfortunately that has proved impossible to do on a number of occasions in
the past.

One common claim is that there is better detail with LP. How does anyone
*prove* that either way? I remember one clear occasion when Ray
Bitsy/Cessna/&c. was here and he was comparing the CD and LP versions of
Miles Davis Kind Of Blue - he pointed out a passage where, on the CD, an
instrument had virtually *disappeared* while it was plain to hear on the LP.
When he mentioned this on the group, the then much more vociferous
antivinylists howled him down and he effectively ran off.

(My own view with the 'detail thing' is that I most definitely find LPs have
better 'depth and space' which increases the clarity and allows the detail
be heard. Put another way, I think the sound from CD is relatively 'planar'
and detail is collapsed, by comparison.)



Contrast that with my own situation. When I do find I 'prefer' one to the
other I can often identify a reason which could be checked or
identified in some way. e.g's being rifle shots or wow or end-of-side
distortion. ...And in some cases one version being deliberately clipped,
and the other not. :-)


Sure, but interesting that your choice for one appears to be very often
based on a lack of the defects found in the other....??



And in other cases, either LP or CD may sound fine to me, but for the
various reasons I've already explained, I end up finding CD is simply
a more reliable bet for delivering the results I enjoy.


Yep and I have no problem with that.

As an illustration of just how much I don't prefer CD, consider the genuine
faff factor in this:

Don't ask why, but I like to collect MP3s. I don't listen to them and I have
no need for music on the move - even a recently fitted car radio/CDP hasn't
seen a CD for many weeks now! But there is a custom here that visitors often
bring a disk or few for me to, er, backup to MP3 while the evenings proceed.

To create the MP3s I have to put the disk in to 'extract the audio' and then
save each track as am MP3, typing the track No. and title for each one. It
can take an hour to do a disk while doing other things at the same time. To
clone a CD takes 3 mins and involves putting the original disk in and then a
blank disk shortly afterwards. Cost of the blanks is negligible - less than
10p each, but I just know there's no point making a CD copy!!

Add to that, to reinforce the point, cleaning LPs is the most boring job in
the world (after 2 or 3 of them) and I still have something like 2,000 still
to go.....!!

????

(But I'm having even more problems with CDs now - I'm beginning to suspect
that CD copies and MP3 rips are *not* bit perfect (see correspondence with
Don) and I'm wondering if the people who claim to be able to tell the
difference between the original and copies might not be right....??)