"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

"David Looser" wrote in message
...

But a piano note is not a pure tone, it is rich in harmonics, and it's
well known that a very low note can be implied by creating the
harmonic structure that might relate to a missing sub-audible
fundamental, the human brain "filling in" the missing fundamental.
This trick is commonly employed in organs and is, I strongly suspect,
also how the Bosendorfer Grand Imperial appears to create a note of
16.45Hz.

Well actually it's simpler than that. It has an extra octave at the
bottom end:-)

Is it? I can't say. But having a key for such a nominal 'note' doesn't
establish that it produces an audible component at 16.45Hz.

The Bösendorfer piano to which I refer, the Imperial Grand Concert
piano, was specifically built at the request of Busoni sometime around
1900. The keyboard has a 97 keys, with keys of the extra
octave faced in black ebony. Some versions of the instrument have a
black hinged flap which can be closed to when the normnal 88 key
keyboad is sufficient.

One doesn't see these instruments often, and with a price tag of
Euro 200,000 not too many people have one at home.

As I'm sure you
are aware it has been a trick employed by organ builders to 'fake' very
low
frequencies by creating their harmonics. Causing human perception to
'hear'
the (absent) LF fundamental. Simplicity is sometimes easier to assume than
to carry out in practice. :-)

Yes indeed. Organ builders refer to this as pipe halving.


A quick calculation or a glance at Grove's chart will show
that the fundamental of C(0) is indeed 16.45Hz.

But as David had pointed out, each note on a piano does not produce just a
single sinusoid. So such a 'quick calculation' may not tell you what is
actually happening.

Can you point at some evidence to resolve this? I have no idea what occurs
in this specific case.

You may wish then to direct your question to:
http://www.boesendorfer.com/en/contact.html

Regards
Iain

In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

"David Looser" wrote in message
...

But a piano note is not a pure tone, it is rich in harmonics, and
it's well known that a very low note can be implied by creating the
harmonic structure that might relate to a missing sub-audible
fundamental, the human brain "filling in" the missing fundamental.
This trick is commonly employed in organs and is, I strongly
suspect, also how the Bosendorfer Grand Imperial appears to create
a note of 16.45Hz.

Well actually it's simpler than that. It has an extra octave at the
bottom end:-)

Is it? I can't say. But having a key for such a nominal 'note' doesn't
establish that it produces an audible component at 16.45Hz.

The Bösendorfer piano to which I refer, the Imperial Grand Concert
piano, was specifically built at the request of Busoni sometime around
1900. The keyboard has a 97 keys, with keys of the extra octave faced
in black ebony. Some versions of the instrument have a black hinged flap
which can be closed to when the normnal 88 key keyboad is sufficient.

One doesn't see these instruments often, and with a price tag of Euro
200,000 not too many people have one at home.

Interesting. But not really dealing with my point.


Can you point at some evidence to resolve this? I have no idea what
occurs in this specific case.

You may wish then to direct your question to:
http://www.boesendorfer.com/en/contact.html

TBH for my present purposes it is sufficient that your responses indicate
that you don't know. It seems quite unlikely to me. But I can live with the
uncertainty for now. :-) May inquire further at some future point,
though, when things that occupy me currently have been done.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

"Iain Churches" wrote in message

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...

Can you point at some evidence to resolve this? I have
no idea what occurs in this specific case.

You may wish then to direct your question to:
http://www.boesendorfer.com/en/contact.html

IOW, Iain doesn't want to stand behind his own claims. :-(

"Iain Churches" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message

David Looser wrote:

Modern turntables work no better than those of the
1970s,

I would be interested to know, David, have you even
seen, let alone auditioned, a Verdier or SME?

This one is very easy to figure out.

Note that Iain surreptiously removed my actual argument.

Simple intellectual dishonesty on his part.

Don't tell me Arny. You have one of each model in the SME
and Verdier range, stowed away under your Bosendorfer:-)))

Just another example of how low Iain has sunk.

"David Looser" wrote in
message

My claim "Modern turntables work no better than those of
the 1970s" is based on the fact that modern turntables
work no differently from those of the 1970s.

I suspect that some of them work more poorly than the best turntables of the
1970s, what with all of the high end floobydust that many of them affect.

The TT is far from high-tech, on the contrary it's a very simple
machine whose requirements has been well understood for
over half a century.

If memory serves, the last tech papers about advancements in production and
playback of LPs date back to the early 1970s, if not earlier.

If you are claiming that mechanical
engineering has improved dramatically in recent years I
suggest you look at some of the machines the Victorians
built.

There have been some advancements in materials and vibration control, but
there is no evidence that they had any benefits other than lowering costs.
It is certain that the cost of producing a given quality turntable has
increased much faster than inflation due to vastly reduced production
quantities and lack of competition.

In view of the well-known performance limitations
of the vinyl medium even you must accept that there must
be a point of perfection in TTs beyond which no audible
improvement will be apparent. I suggest this point was
reached by 1980 at the latest.

Probably at least 5 years before that. When serious efforts were made
towards optical discs and digital audio and some sucess was achieved,
serious efforts to improve the performance of vinyl lost their economic
justification. The Laserdisc was introduced in 1978 but its coming was
telegraphed well in advance of then. It was not clear in the early 1970s
whether the sequel technology would involve digital, but it was clear that
it would not involve conventional LP discs. Some candidate technologies
were based on FM coding.

So if you want to claim that modern TTs sound better than
those of 40 years ago I suggest that some evidence would
help your cause. I don't mean personal anecdotes, but a
properly conducted listening test.

There have been recently published technical tests of high end turntables
and they show zero advancement in technical performance.

[BTW a properly conducted listening test includes the
following requirements: listening panel of at least a
dozen, preferably more. Listeners to know nothing about
the test in advance (i.e.. they don't know they are
listening to turntables, let alone which ones), Each
listener listens on their own to avoid influencing each
other, order of presentation to vary with each listener
to avoid precedence effects and inclusion of 'trick'
comparisons (e.g., both A and B are the same TT) to see
how much listeners are subconsciously trying to provide
the answers they think are expected.]

I look forward to seeing the results of your test in due
course Iain.

We can count on Iain to again be a no-show.

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

David Looser wrote:

Modern turntables work no better than those of the 1970s,

I would be interested to know, David, have you even seen,
let alone auditioned, a Verdier or SME?

No, I have seen neither. Indeed I've never even heard of a Verdier and,
whilst I am familiar with SME arms, I was not aware that they also made
turntables.

But say I had "auditioned" these turntables, what would that prove, unless
I had been able to compare them with every TT made in the 1970s? There are
many fine turntables dating from the 1970s which are still in use and
whose owners will claim sound every bit as good as anything more recent.

My claim "Modern turntables work no better than those of the 1970s" is
based on the fact that modern turntables work no differently from those of
the 1970s.


IOW, based on no experience whatsoever.


The TT is far from high-tech, on the contrary it's a very simple
machine whose requirements has been well understood for over half a
century. If you are claiming that mechanical engineering has improved
dramatically in recent years I suggest you look at some of the machines
the Victorians built. In view of the well-known performance limitations of
the vinyl medium even you must accept that there must be a point of
perfection in TTs beyond which no audible improvement will be apparent. I
suggest this point was reached by 1980 at the latest.


Pointless conjecture without actual experience of the relevant turntables.



So if you want to claim that modern TTs sound better than those of 40
years ago I suggest that some evidence would help your cause. I don't mean
personal anecdotes, but a properly conducted listening test.


Exactly, but not so 'easily 'doable' in the real world unless you have the
resources of a trade magazine, then you'll have the journos to write it all
up in a completely subjective, flowery and meaningless way. My own
turntables are a mix of 70s and 80s 'cooking quality' Lenco and two Technics
because, wait for it, I don't believe expensive turntables would sound any
better. But I don't actually *know* that because I haven't tried any really
expensive turntables....

In article , Keith G
wrote:



So if you want to claim that modern TTs sound better than those of 40
years ago I suggest that some evidence would help your cause. I don't
mean personal anecdotes, but a properly conducted listening test.


Exactly, but not so 'easily 'doable' in the real world unless you have
the resources of a trade magazine,

Actually quite 'doable' by amateurs **if** they want to actually do so. But
not something achieved by casual listening at home where the object is
simply to enjoy the music.

The main requirement for controlled comparison tests that can give
assessable results are that those involved understand how to carry out the
comparisons, and then put in the time and care required. In general neither
very expensive nor requiring costly test-equipment (beyond perhaps the
items to be compared!). It also doesn't require any particular
qualifications or skill in science or engineering. Although if people want
to understand *why* tests might best be done this way to avoid misleading
outcomes they may have to spend some time on studying the reasons for
various comparison and assessment methods.

So just really down to people being willing to put in some time and care.

My unreliable recollection is that some groups of enthusiasts *have* done
such controlled comparisons in the past. But they tended to then be
'dissapointed' by finding a tendency for the results to show less sign of
the audible differences between costly and more basic kit that some people
tend to think will present. However I mainly recall amplifier comparisons,
not ones on TTs as my 'professional' interest in days of yore was amps and
tuners, not TTs.

The common outcome was then to 'blame the test as being useless' if the
results weren't what people probably wanted. Shoot the piano player. :-)


then you'll have the journos to write it all up in a completely
subjective, flowery and meaningless way.

That bit you can bypass. Just publish the raw results and give details of
how the comparison was done. :-)

My own turntables are a mix of 70s and 80s 'cooking quality' Lenco
and two Technics because, wait for it, I don't believe expensive
turntables would sound any better. But I don't actually *know* that
because I haven't tried any really expensive turntables....

Nor I. Not seen any reason to do so beyond mild curiosity about what people
spend big sums on. :-)

FWIW I had a Garrand 301 handed over to me some time ago. Didn't want it,
so gave it to a friend to play with. http://www.audiobuilder.co.uk/ No
idea if he is using it yet as he has one of the newer SME decks with all
the rubber bands. :-)

BTW He does design very nice amplifiers.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

"Keith G" wrote in message

"David Looser" wrote in
message ...

So if you want to claim that modern TTs sound better
than those of 40 years ago I suggest that some evidence
would help your cause. I don't mean personal anecdotes,
but a properly conducted listening test.

Exactly, but not so 'easily 'doable' in the real world
unless you have the resources of a trade magazine, then
you'll have the journos to write it all up in a
completely subjective, flowery and meaningless way.

Our audio club did TT-related DBTs back in the 70s:

http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_phca.htm

The same basic methodology could be used to compare turntables.

But I don't actually *know* that because I haven't tried any
really expensive turntables...

I've been to enough high end audio shows and visited with enough well-heeled
LP true believers to have listened to some really expensive stuff.

No matter what they say, it isn't the second coming... The LPs still sound
like LPs.

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



So if you want to claim that modern TTs sound better than those of 40
years ago I suggest that some evidence would help your cause. I don't
mean personal anecdotes, but a properly conducted listening test.


Exactly, but not so 'easily 'doable' in the real world unless you have
the resources of a trade magazine,

Actually quite 'doable' by amateurs **if** they want to actually do so.
But
not something achieved by casual listening at home where the object is
simply to enjoy the music.



Make that 'doable by *wealthy* amateurs and I'm with you. Personally, I
don't have 30-40K set aside for the 'curiosity purchase' of a dirt girt
high-end TT, preferably with a 50 kg, 6 inch deep, magnetically-levitated
platter.

This nightmare weighs, I believe, 770 lbs and costs $150,000 !!

http://www.hemagazine.com/files/Clearaudio.jpg

OK, cheaper here and a better pic:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/slides...-0-0-jpg-.html

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message

"David Looser" wrote in
message ...

So if you want to claim that modern TTs sound better
than those of 40 years ago I suggest that some evidence
would help your cause. I don't mean personal anecdotes,
but a properly conducted listening test.

Exactly, but not so 'easily 'doable' in the real world
unless you have the resources of a trade magazine, then
you'll have the journos to write it all up in a
completely subjective, flowery and meaningless way.

Our audio club did TT-related DBTs back in the 70s:

http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_phca.htm

The same basic methodology could be used to compare turntables.

But I don't actually *know* that because I haven't tried any
really expensive turntables...

I've been to enough high end audio shows and visited with enough
well-heeled LP true believers to have listened to some really expensive
stuff.

No matter what they say, it isn't the second coming... The LPs still
sound like LPs.



Thankfully - no point in all that faff and hassle if the result sounded like
a CD/download is there?

I played records all afternoon today (seriously ****ty weather) - the moment
the needle went down I was 'gripped' by the sound!

:-)