"Paul" wrote in message
...

Exactly - 'how much deterioration', not whether there is *any*
deterioration.
The process is flawed. Why is it that it appears to 'hurt' people to admit
it?
Why is there a problem accepting a less flawed alternative to vynil?
I must conclude that High Fidelity is not the goal of many.
If people said 'I know vinyl is not High Fidelity but I prefer it' then I
could understand.

Paul

Please enlighten all by detailing what the technical specifications of a
reproduction medium must be for it to be categorised "High Fidelity", and
therefore where you draw the line.

In article ,
Paul wrote:
This proves that LP isn't a clone of any master - and that's before the
mastering boys have got at it. And can't possibly enhance the original -
regardless of what the disciples say. It is adding distortion - in the
main.


No need to do this. We know it is not a clone or anywhere close. It has
been butchered by the RIAA filter in an attempt to make up for the
inability of a mechanical system.

Pre-emphasis and subsequent de-emphasis is also used on analogue tape
recording systems, FM radio, etc etc. Nothing wrong with it if correctly
implemented.

--
*Why don't sheep shrink when it rains?

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

In article ,
Paul wrote:
The record companies were in an excellent position to do this as they
could compare the various stages though the process, so could
establish how much deterioration occured when a stamper was made, etc.

Exactly - 'how much deterioration', not whether there is *any*
deterioration. The process is flawed. Why is it that it appears to
'hurt' people to admit it? Why is there a problem accepting a less
flawed alternative to vynil? I must conclude that High Fidelity is not
the goal of many. If people said 'I know vinyl is not High Fidelity but
I prefer it' then I could understand.

It still makes for an interesting discussion, however, as many appeared to
have forgotten just how 'vinyl' actually works.

--
*If a parsley farmer is sued, can they garnish his wages?

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

snip

No need to do this. We know it is not a clone or anywhere close. It has
been butchered by the RIAA filter in an attempt to make up for the
inability of a mechanical system.

Pre-emphasis and subsequent de-emphasis is also used on analogue tape
recording systems, FM radio, etc etc. Nothing wrong with it if correctly
implemented.

Ok. I'm willing to strike that from my list if for no other reason than not
wishing to get bogged down
However, well done or not, to me it's a bodge, a fudge, a fix for an
inadequate method. If it wasn't needed it would not have been employed. The
fact the it is required tells me all I need to know.
Incidentally, in my view, both tape and FM are awful and could never be
labelled Hi-Fi either!

Paul

Please enlighten all by detailing what the technical specifications of a
reproduction medium must be for it to be categorised "High Fidelity", and
therefore where you draw the line.

I am not trying to enlighten - I have no interest in that area. (Do *all*
need enlightenment?)

What I find interesting is the stubborn unwillingness of many to acknowledge
widely held and believed scientific principles.
Do you, or others, consider that physics does not apply to the vinyl issue?
If so, and you can provide reliable, repeatable evidence, you are in a
position to turn science on its head. I envy you - you will become a
household name over night. So, can we please put that one to bed?

Ok, lets forget technical specs for a moment. The *highest* fidelity will be
attained when the reproduced sound is identical to the source.
This would be verified, or not, by comparison using calibrated instruments.
Simple isn't it? Obviously I am not referring to comparison by ear which is
not calibrated and, in many cases, is faulty. Sure, that will tell you which
system is preferable to you and your ears but is meaningless in terms of
Hi-Fi. This should be obvious due to the fact that we don't find 100% of the
listeners choosing the same system. So who is picking the best system? With
this method of selection I would suggest they all are!

Current technology may or may not yet allow the *highest* fidelity - I don't
know. However, by comparison with a replicable sound source, it will let us
identify the which comes closest. High Fidelity sits at the top of the
(current) tree.
It should be clear that you can only draw a line when there is something
both above and below it. Therefore there is no line to be drawn.
If you are one of the many who have a need to be able to proclaim 'my system
is above the line' then fine. I have absolutely no problem with that and why
should I?

Paul

PS Is that you Keith?

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 16:32:38 +0100, "Paul" wrote:

snip

No need to do this. We know it is not a clone or anywhere close. It has
been butchered by the RIAA filter in an attempt to make up for the
inability of a mechanical system.

Pre-emphasis and subsequent de-emphasis is also used on analogue tape
recording systems, FM radio, etc etc. Nothing wrong with it if correctly
implemented.

Ok. I'm willing to strike that from my list if for no other reason than not
wishing to get bogged down
However, well done or not, to me it's a bodge, a fudge, a fix for an
inadequate method. If it wasn't needed it would not have been employed. The
fact the it is required tells me all I need to know.
Incidentally, in my view, both tape and FM are awful and could never be
labelled Hi-Fi either!

Paul


It is neither a bodge nor a fix. It is a way of using a resource that
would otherwise be wasted - high frequency headroom. An exactly
matched amplitude/phase curve is exactly equivalent to flat frequency
and phase, and there is no problem whatever in making that match.

And do remember that the CD specification includes the option to use
pre-emphasis.

d

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

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 16:32:38 +0100, "Paul" wrote:

snip

It is neither a bodge nor a fix. It is a way of using a resource that
would otherwise be wasted - high frequency headroom. An exactly
matched amplitude/phase curve is exactly equivalent to flat frequency
and phase, and there is no problem whatever in making that match.

Are you telling me that an RIAA filter is optional for vinyl?
My understanding is that it is a prerequisite and that it has to be employed
because it is impossible to cut a groove at high frequencies (perhaps even
low frequencies). The same being true for retrieval - a stylus simply could
not track it accurately even if it could be cut. Without it's use, the vinyl
experience would be appalling.
I believe that, because of the limitations, information is
compressed/omitted/converted or whatever and reconstituted in the amp. Am I
wrong here? I am more than happy to be told when I am wrong. If I am
correct, it is a bodge etc put in place to overcome limitations.


And do remember that the CD specification includes the option to use
pre-emphasis.

But is it used? More to the point, as it is optional, it is clear that it
isn't necessary.

Paul

In article ,
Paul wrote:
Incidentally, in my view, both tape and FM are awful and could never be
labelled Hi-Fi either!

I do wonder if you've heard either at its best. I have a Revox reel to
reel with a Dolby SR unit around it which gives results as near as dammit
to 16 bit PCM. FM radio can also be pretty good - although these days the
dreaded optimod type devices often ruin it.

--
*I finally got my head together, now my body is falling apart.

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

snip

It is neither a bodge nor a fix. It is a way of using a resource that
would otherwise be wasted - high frequency headroom. An exactly
matched amplitude/phase curve is exactly equivalent to flat frequency
and phase, and there is no problem whatever in making that match.

Oops, missed a bit!
Why would you wish to perform two unnecessary conversions?
How can you be sure of an *exact* match?
Surely it is unwise to add any unnecessary circuitry.

Paul

Paul wrote:
"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 16:32:38 +0100, "Paul" wrote:


snip

It is neither a bodge nor a fix. It is a way of using a resource that
would otherwise be wasted - high frequency headroom. An exactly
matched amplitude/phase curve is exactly equivalent to flat frequency
and phase, and there is no problem whatever in making that match.


Are you telling me that an RIAA filter is optional for vinyl?
My understanding is that it is a prerequisite and that it has to be employed
because it is impossible to cut a groove at high frequencies (perhaps even
low frequencies). The same being true for retrieval - a stylus simply could
not track it accurately even if it could be cut. Without it's use, the vinyl
experience would be appalling.
I believe that, because of the limitations, information is
compressed/omitted/converted or whatever and reconstituted in the amp. Am I
wrong here? I am more than happy to be told when I am wrong. If I am
correct, it is a bodge etc put in place to overcome limitations.



I can't see how its a bodge, its a filter, that is designed to be
matched with a inverse on replay. Remember there is a similar (though
for different reasons) filter employed in the recording and replay of
CD's, again, without that filter the CD experence would be equally
appalling (maybe worst without the initial filter before the AD, and
even with a DDD disk, somewhere there will be a AD step unless you are
listening to just a digital synth).

If it gets you less upset don't think of it as a filter, think of it as
a converter from a position detection to a velocity detection system and
the reverse at playback.

--
Nick