"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Arny
Krueger
wrote:
[snip]

We can see that just the turntable + arm alone is very likely to blow
the $250 stated budget. Eyeball average is about $350

Most people don't have good preamps of sufficient grade, so I'll throw
in a $75 allowance for a good used preamp. Some of the turntables above
included a cartrdge, some didn't, I'll throw in a $50 allowance for
half a good cartrdige.

Another point which may be worth bearing in mind is that '78' recordings
may:

A) have been made using various non-RIAA pre-emphasis curves. So requiring
a rather flexible correct network for replay, and some suitable knowledge
or judgement on the part of the user. On this basis a normal 'good preamp'
may not suffice. (Unless the aim is to sample the results and then correct
them in the digital domain.)

B) may not actually be '78 rpm'. So may also require the replay speed to
be
alterable, by ear. (Or, as above, be corrected once sampled.)

This also ignores questions like the choice of stylus size and tracking
angle... :-)



Information and equipment is readily available for people who wish to play
78s electronically:

http://sound.westhost.com/project91.htm

http://www.esotericsound.com/elect.htm

http://www.vadlyd.dk/English/RIAA_an...PM_preamp.html


(That they will have 'suitable knowledge or judgement' goes without saying,
really....!! ;-)

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Rob" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message

OK. I'm *fairly* sure I can hear a difference between
LP-CD recordings and LP-original. Not absolutely sure mind, no rigorous
test, just mild and recreational observation. Then I'm told there can't
be any difference.

No, you've been told that there shouldn't be a difference, and that
others have achieved that result.

And I haven't been told the basis of that reasoning.

It's simple. It is well known and fairly easy to show that the CD format
does not alter musical signals taken off of a LP in any audible way.

Think of it as a plumbing problem. Think of music as being water. Think of
the LP as being a 1/2" pipe. Think of the CD as being a 4" pipe. If
there's a smooth coupling from the 1/2" pipe to the 4" pipe, how much is
the 4" pipe going to cut back on the flow of the water? Obviously, the
1/2" pipe is the weakest link and will set the pace for the flow of water.



Pretty good analogy for the UK - 1/2" pipe conducts pure, clean drinking
water into the house and 4" pipe conducts poo out of it....

:-)

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Arny
Krueger
wrote:
[snip]

We can see that just the turntable + arm alone is very likely to blow
the $250 stated budget. Eyeball average is about $350

Most people don't have good preamps of sufficient grade, so I'll throw
in a $75 allowance for a good used preamp. Some of the turntables above
included a cartrdge, some didn't, I'll throw in a $50 allowance for
half a good cartrdige.

Another point which may be worth bearing in mind is that '78' recordings
may:

A) have been made using various non-RIAA pre-emphasis curves. So requiring
a rather flexible correct network for replay, and some suitable knowledge
or judgement on the part of the user. On this basis a normal 'good preamp'
may not suffice. (Unless the aim is to sample the results and then correct
them in the digital domain.)

I know some people who do this sort of thing. Often, they just use a RIAA
curve and then use sophisticated equalizers to restore the balance that got
lost due to the obvious mismatch.

B) may not actually be '78 rpm'. So may also require the replay speed to
be
alterable, by ear. (Or, as above, be corrected once sampled.)

Mostly the latter, these days.

This also ignores questions like the choice of stylus size and tracking
angle... :-)

Important questions.

Mr. Worth always seems to put on his rose-colored glasses when he talks
about vinyl. ;-)

Keith G wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Stephen Worth" wrote in message
...
In article , Mr.T
MrT@home wrote:

Possibly good enough for those $1 LP's I guess, but I wouldn't play
*mine*
on a crap box. Hell a new stylus costs me that much!
You can get higher end turntables from the 70s used for much
less than the cost of low end new turntables. You just have to
look. Dual, Thorens, Rega... they're all out there and they're far
from being crap boxes.
Trouble is, $250 isn't what it costs to put together a credible vinyl
setup, following the instructions above.

snip bits about 250USD

I recently bought a pretty decent TT/cart for 35UKP plus p&p:

http://patchoulian.googlepages.com/jvcjl-a40


That looks better each time I see a pic of it!

(The Victor Company Of Japan didn't make much over the years that I wouldn't
have been very pleased to own....!! ;-)


It's a cracker all told. I haven't done a big comparison with the
Project, but in a quickish A-B it didn't seem obviously different -
makes yer wonder ;-)

And the thing is - it hardly shows its age. The switches and general
feel are top notch, bearings have no play and it's mechanically silent.
I dread to think what this level of engineering would cost today ...

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
...

I can guess the background (in methodological terms) to the test you cite,
and I'd happily it with you here or elsewhere.

It's pretty simple. We lined up the highest quality live and recorded analog
audibo sources we could in one of top recording studios in the region, and
compared a short piece of wire with a device that put the audio signal into
CD format and then conveted it back to a regular audio signal. We found no
audible difference, using a variety of musicians, audio engineers and
experienced audiophiles as our listeners.


Again, you're confusing methodology with method.

I also have a few issues with method mentioned elsewhere in this thread.

What are they?


I have no 'expert' knowledge of testing protocols in this context. I
would have thought any lay person would point to:

Environmental variables - light, heat, seating, audience.
Sample - did you test their hearing acuity? It strikes me, and here I
lapse into stereotype, that the people involved were possibly middle
aged men? Who by training listen for and expect particular things? Whose
hearing is possibly past its best?!

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message

OK. I'm *fairly* sure I can hear a difference between
LP-CD recordings and LP-original. Not absolutely sure mind, no rigorous
test, just mild and recreational observation. Then I'm told there can't
be any difference.
No, you've been told that there shouldn't be a difference, and that
others have achieved that result.

And I haven't been told the basis of that reasoning.

It's simple. It is well known and fairly easy to show that the CD format
does not alter musical signals taken off of a LP in any audible way.

Think of it as a plumbing problem. Think of music as being water. Think of
the LP as being a 1/2" pipe. Think of the CD as being a 4" pipe. If there's
a smooth coupling from the 1/2" pipe to the 4" pipe, how much is the 4" pipe
going to cut back on the flow of the water? Obviously, the 1/2" pipe is the
weakest link and will set the pace for the flow of water.


Depends what's flowing through the pipe I would have thought - oil and
water?!

Actaully, that's a good analogy because it suggests certain fixed and
known boundaries. In methodological terms I quite like this approach
because it gives you something to 'aim for' in field work. The problem
is always knowing what the boundaries (or pipe diameter in your analogy)
are, and you (I) end up making assumptions. Some are perfectly
reasonable, but if you contrive any test that rules out anything beyond
the pipe/boundaries you *could* miss something.

"Rob" wrote

I recently bought a pretty decent TT/cart for 35UKP plus p&p:

http://patchoulian.googlepages.com/jvcjl-a40


That looks better each time I see a pic of it!

(The Victor Company Of Japan didn't make much over the years that I
wouldn't have been very pleased to own....!! ;-)


It's a cracker all told. I haven't done a big comparison with the Project,
but in a quickish A-B it didn't seem obviously different - makes yer
wonder ;-)

And the thing is - it hardly shows its age. The switches and general feel
are top notch, bearings have no play and it's mechanically silent. I dread
to think what this level of engineering would cost today ...


Thousands, but that doesn't mean it isn't available to those suitably
endowed - start here, for an idea:

http://aca.gr/turntable.htm

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Rob" wrote

I recently bought a pretty decent TT/cart for 35UKP plus p&p:

http://patchoulian.googlepages.com/jvcjl-a40


That looks better each time I see a pic of it!

(The Victor Company Of Japan didn't make much over the years that I
wouldn't have been very pleased to own....!! ;-)


It's a cracker all told. I haven't done a big comparison with the
Project, but in a quickish A-B it didn't seem obviously different - makes
yer wonder ;-)

And the thing is - it hardly shows its age. The switches and general feel
are top notch, bearings have no play and it's mechanically silent. I
dread to think what this level of engineering would cost today ...


Thousands, but that doesn't mean it isn't available to those suitably
endowed - start here, for an idea:

http://aca.gr/turntable.htm




Where you will see this, if you scroll down a bit:

"The present LP/CD ratio is 63.6% / 36.4%, among 102,000 records, owned by
A.C.A. Members."


- Tad more meaningful statistic to me than what percentage of knock-off CDs
are being bought by Chavs in pubs and at car boots, compared with the number
of dog-eared vinyl copies of Singalong Max that are being bought.....

;-)

In article , Rob
wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
...

I can guess the background (in methodological terms) to the test you
cite, and I'd happily it with you here or elsewhere.

It's pretty simple. We lined up the highest quality live and recorded
analog audibo sources we could in one of top recording studios in
the region, and compared a short piece of wire with a device that put
the audio signal into CD format and then conveted it back to a
regular audio signal. We found no audible difference, using a variety
of musicians, audio engineers and experienced audiophiles as our
listeners.


Again, you're confusing methodology with method.

Do you mean by "methodology" here, the reasons for the choice of the
specific experimental method and protocol used? If so, see below...

I also have a few issues with method mentioned elsewhere in this
thread.

What are they?


I have no 'expert' knowledge of testing protocols in this context. I
would have thought any lay person would point to:

Environmental variables - light, heat, seating, audience. Sample - did
you test their hearing acuity? It strikes me, and here I lapse into
stereotype, that the people involved were possibly middle aged men? Who
by training listen for and expect particular things? Whose hearing is
possibly past its best?!

In my experience it is not common in research reports or papers to give all
the details of why a given method was chosen.[1] They would normally be
summarised or taken as assumed on the basis that those working in the field
can be expected to have read the relevant background material for
themselves and should know already the strengths, weaknesses, and purposes
of specific methods or protocols for that specific area of study. e.g. they
would already know what main confounding or interfering factors would need
to be controlled or dealt with by the means employed.

The main exception to the above is where a 'new' method is being introduced
(or challenged), and the reasons for this should then either be given, or
explicitily referred to so the reader can look at the reference(s) to
decide this for themselves.

The above is probably why it seems that many experimental scientists tend
not to concern themselves with this as they just use the 'usual tools from
the toolkit'. However when a method/protocol is well established the normal
expectation is that anyone who wishes to challenge it has the onus on them
to do so, and to give both (testable) reasons for their concerns and an
alternative which can be put into practice and judged by its behaviour.[2]

i.e. the methods/protocols themselves are also subject to the scientific
method.

Rob, if you are interested in the specifics for audio here, it might make
sense for you to join a body like the AES or find a suitable uni library.
This could probably lead to the info you require.

Slainte,

Jim

[1] Note, though, that this is mostly in areas quite different to audio
listening comparisons, etc.

[2] Doing so may then quickly lead to finding material already published
that covers the relevant points - or may not. Such is research. :-)

--
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

"Rob" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
...

I can guess the background (in methodological terms) to the test you
cite, and I'd happily it with you here or elsewhere.

It's pretty simple. We lined up the highest quality live and recorded
analog audibo sources we could in one of top recording studios in the
region, and compared a short piece of wire with a device that put the
audio signal into CD format and then conveted it back to a regular audio
signal. We found no audible difference, using a variety of musicians,
audio engineers and experienced audiophiles as our listeners.

Again, you're confusing methodology with method.

Again, you're turning me off with your endless hair-splitting. If you want
an endless discussion of semantics, I suggest you find an appropriate Usenet
group. There are at least 3 Usenet groups with semantics in their names.

I also have a few issues with method mentioned elsewhere in this thread.

What are they?

I have no 'expert' knowledge of testing protocols in this context. I would
have thought any lay person would point to:

Environmental variables - light, heat, seating, audience.

Obvious.

Sample - did you test their hearing acuity?

Read the list of participants. Do you seriously think that yo would
naturally find a lot of people in a group of musicians, audio engineers and
experienced audiophiles who lacked at last normal ability to distinguish
sonic differences?

It strikes me, and here I lapse into stereotype, that the people involved
were possibly middle aged men?

No, the oldest of them were in their late 40s, the youngest were in their
20s.

Who by training listen for and expect particular things?

You must have zero respect for musicians, audio engineers, and audiophiles.

Whose hearing is possibly past its best?

You are obviously clutching for straws.