"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Paul
wrote:

[snip]

Elementary(?) physics will enlighten as to why this should be. When the
master was cut, information was lost due to the fact that it is
impossible to move mass (however small) from rest instantly. Inertia -
bang goes transient response. Try and get moving mass to change
direction instantly - bugger, more information lost. It gets worse (well
you knew that). Now we will try and get another body to 'read' the
information from the groove. Buzzzzz, repartition! I'm not even
considering the 'damage' caused to the signal by the unstable, pliable
disc. Need I say more?

FWIW The record companies (and cartridge replay companines) themselves did
a series of experiments, measurements, etc, on these things many years
ago.
I used them as sources for an article on the topic. If you visit my 'Audio
Misc' site and look at the pages called "Good Resolutions" the second page
gives the references and explains the consequences.

I haven't read your article but, if I read your post correctly, there are
consequences.


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.

Paul


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

"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.

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?

"Paul" wrote in message
...


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?



Is *what* me?

Are you making the mistake of thinking I *don't* have about 500 CDs, 15,000
MP3s and 500 DVD-Videos here?

(Not to mention DAB and FV radio, two 'media computers' with DL DVDRW
drives, a selection of digital PVRs, STBs, CDPs, DVDPs and a couple of
Digital Projectors....???)

You'll be joining the ranks of those here (OK, one clown actually....)
calling me a 'Flat Earther' next.....!!

Is *what* me?

Are you making the mistake of thinking I *don't* have about 500 CDs,
15,000 MP3s and 500 DVD-Videos here?

(Not to mention DAB and FV radio, two 'media computers' with DL DVDRW
drives, a selection of digital PVRs, STBs, CDPs, DVDPs and a couple of
Digital Projectors....???)

You'll be joining the ranks of those here (OK, one clown actually....)
calling me a 'Flat Earther' next.....!!


Keith, I have no idea what you have.
Trust me, I have no intention of calling you anything - I don't indulge in
such nonsense. In fact, should this discussion(?) degenerate to that level
(as many seem to do) I'm out of here! I won't be applying for membership to
anything and I would appreciate it if people will avoid nominating me!
I would imagine that you get great enjoyment from your listening
experience - that's what it's about isn't it.
I accept that many like to tinker and audio is a hobby to them. I have no
problem with that - it's none of my business anyway.
My 'problem' (obsession?) is that I want a system that will get me as close
as possible to the original sound.
In my quest it is clear to me that some get closer than others. It is
unfortunate that, in highlighting the less capable ones (and demonstrably
so), some people get upset. Is that my fault? I don't believe so but if it
is, I apologise.
At the end of the day, if a listener is happy with their system then that's
all that matters.
In the mean time, I'll plough on.

Paul

"Paul" wrote in message
...

Is *what* me?

Are you making the mistake of thinking I *don't* have about 500 CDs,
15,000 MP3s and 500 DVD-Videos here?

(Not to mention DAB and FV radio, two 'media computers' with DL DVDRW
drives, a selection of digital PVRs, STBs, CDPs, DVDPs and a couple of
Digital Projectors....???)

You'll be joining the ranks of those here (OK, one clown actually....)
calling me a 'Flat Earther' next.....!!


Keith, I have no idea what you have.


Yes you do, I've just told you (see above) - the point I'm making is that
although I greatly prefer vinyl for *serious* listeng, I have a *rake* of
digital gear here for music/computing/AV purposes....



Trust me, I have no intention of calling you anything - I don't indulge in
such nonsense. In fact, should this discussion(?) degenerate to that level
(as many seem to do) I'm out of here!


So you (oops) keep saying!


My 'problem' (obsession?) is that I want a system that will get me as
close as possible to the original sound.


Nobody here would have a problem with that....

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.

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

The problem is nobody here will discuss it! I do not believe they are (all)
stupid so I can only assume that they are in denial else why would they
attempt to defend the indefensible? However, I must admit that there was no
defence offered to the Physics issue. I wonder why! Would it lessen the
shock if CDs were made from clear vinyl do you think?

----------------------------------------------------

To e-mail, change noise into sound.

----------------------------------------------------

I guess you don't get many e-mails from this group.

Paul

In article ,
Paul wrote:
It still makes for an interesting discussion, however, as many
appeared to have forgotten just how 'vinyl' actually works.
----------------------------------------------------

The problem is nobody here will discuss it! I do not believe they are
(all) stupid so I can only assume that they are in denial else why
would they attempt to defend the indefensible? However, I must admit
that there was no defence offered to the Physics issue. I wonder why!
Would it lessen the shock if CDs were made from clear vinyl do you
think?

I really don't know why apparently intelligent people give all sorts of
non sequitur answers to my questions about why they actually think vinyl
is ever better. To say the odd example sounds better than a badly mastered
CD from the same source is simply neither here nor there.

Iain, of course, has an axe to grind since he makes a living out of
supplying/using old technology for those who want it, and good luck to
him, but why the others like a recorded medium that alters and degrades
the original master when better alternatives exist I'll never know.

Just as a matter of opinion, I've always preferred the distortions that
analogue tape adds to a signal than that of records. Perhaps I'm unduly
sensitive to second harmonic distortion.

A good test for vinyl is male speech. I've never heard any even remotely
natural from one. Yet equipment to record and reproduce convincing speech
from say behind a acoustically transparent screen existed some 50 years
ago...

--
*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.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Paul wrote:
It still makes for an interesting discussion, however, as many
appeared to have forgotten just how 'vinyl' actually works.
----------------------------------------------------

The problem is nobody here will discuss it! I do not believe they are
(all) stupid so I can only assume that they are in denial else why
would they attempt to defend the indefensible? However, I must admit
that there was no defence offered to the Physics issue. I wonder why!
Would it lessen the shock if CDs were made from clear vinyl do you
think?

I really don't know why apparently intelligent people give all sorts of
non sequitur answers to my questions about why they actually think vinyl
is ever better. To say the odd example sounds better than a badly mastered
CD from the same source is simply neither here nor there.


I suspect it could be to do with five things: the 'distortion', the
processing involved in converting analogue to digital and then back to
analogue, the CD standard cannot capture all the sound, sub-LP standard
transfer to CD, and a fifth - I'd bundle perception, the aural
experience (lack of understanding/appreciation), marketing, association
and a number of other intangibles that don't spring to mind.

'Why' is important to some, but for many the notion that it just sounds
preferable is sufficient.

Iain, of course, has an axe to grind since he makes a living out of
supplying/using old technology for those who want it, and good luck to
him, but why the others like a recorded medium that alters and degrades
the original master when better alternatives exist I'll never know.

Just as a matter of opinion, I've always preferred the distortions that
analogue tape adds to a signal than that of records. Perhaps I'm unduly
sensitive to second harmonic distortion.

A good test for vinyl is male speech. I've never heard any even remotely
natural from one. Yet equipment to record and reproduce convincing speech
from say behind a acoustically transparent screen existed some 50 years
ago...


Can't say I've noticed any particular vinyl limitation in this regard.

Rob