On 07/03/2015 12:57, Johny B Good wrote:


It looks like you've cracked the problem then. You'll probably just
need to rewire using quality cable and connectors to convert your
'workaround' solution into a permanent fix.


I've now got to the stage of trying a test record and immediately found
several issues. The two most important are wiring errors resulting in
L-R reversal and a phase reversal on the left channel. In other words,
it's a pigs ear. Tone arm wire colours are correct so the errors must be
where they connect to the external phono leads. I could correct by
swapping cartridge connectors around but I may as well do it properly
and make the hum fix permanent at the same time.

As I said earlier, these days manufacturers take even less care with
vinyl than they do with other media sources.

CD technology could and should have given us a flat FR from near DC up
to 25kHz, easily covering the range of human hearing. Even going up
to 22kHz it still covers quite comfortably the range of older
listeners such as myself. So to all intents and purposes we could and
should be getting near perfect audio reproduction. But what do we
actually get? While there are some very good quality CDs available,
even of those recordings originally released on vinyl, there are also
too many examples where the sound has been ruined by over-processing.
As has been said many times before, the fault lies not in the
technology, but in the people who use it

It's sad that with each passing generation music in particular and
artistic endeavour in general seem to become less 'art' and more of a
commodity, to be bought, sold, resampled, even stolen.

On a lighter note, not even musical names are safe from this process.
I have come to realise that up here in Scotland, there's a flourishing
humorous line in 'resampled' names for bands, tunes, and songs:
Ceilidh Minogue
Def Shepherd
Red Hot Chilli Pipers
Top Of The Crops
Tradivarious
.... and close, but no cigar ...
Bah Hamburg Part II
The Band From Rockall
The Last Tango in Harris

I know there was another I particularly liked, but I can't remember it
now.

Cue a long off-topic subthread where everyone offers their own
suggestions ...

On Sun, 08 Mar 2015 11:34:47 +0000, Sumatriptan
wrote:

I've now got to the stage of trying a test record and immediately found
several issues. The two most important are wiring errors resulting in
L-R reversal and a phase reversal on the left channel. In other words,
it's a pigs ear.
--
================================================== =======
UK Residents: If you feel can possibly support it
please sign the following ePetition
before closing time of 30/03/2015 23:59:

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/71556
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

Java Jive wrote:


CD technology could and should have given us a flat FR from near DC up
to 25kHz, easily covering the range of human hearing. Even going up
to 22kHz it still covers quite comfortably the range of older
listeners such as myself.

** What a load of ********.

The CD format was designed to record and reproduce MUSIC with no audible loss of quality compared to the original signal.

The format will reproduce signals containing frequencies up to 20kHz with no change.

With MUSIC signal, extensive testing showed that no-body could hear components beyond that frequency.

That some young people can detect steady tones above 20kHz, when reproduced at a high enough level, is irrelevant.


.... Phil

On 9/03/2015 2:15 AM, Java Jive wrote:
As I said earlier, these days manufacturers take even less care with
vinyl than they do with other media sources.

CD technology could and should have given us a flat FR from near DC up
to 25kHz, easily covering the range of human hearing.

**Bull****. With a sampling rate of 44.1kHz, Nyquist tells us that the
theoretical maximum of CDs is 22.05kz.


Even going up
to 22kHz it still covers quite comfortably the range of older
listeners such as myself.

**It actually covers pretty much everyone over the age of 10.


So to all intents and purposes we could and
should be getting near perfect audio reproduction. But what do we
actually get? While there are some very good quality CDs available,
even of those recordings originally released on vinyl, there are also
too many examples where the sound has been ruined by over-processing.
As has been said many times before, the fault lies not in the
technology, but in the people who use it

**Duh.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 12:58:54 +1100, Trevor Wilson
wrote:

On 9/03/2015 2:15 AM, Java Jive wrote:
As I said earlier, these days manufacturers take even less care with
vinyl than they do with other media sources.

CD technology could and should have given us a flat FR from near DC up
to 25kHz, easily covering the range of human hearing.

**Bull****. With a sampling rate of 44.1kHz, Nyquist tells us that the
theoretical maximum of CDs is 22.05kz.

As it was actually implemented it was something of a compromise,
sacrificing FR to give greater playing time, but the space available
on the prototype technology "COULD AND SHOULD" (note what I actually
wrote) have been allocated differently to give us a shorter playback
time at a higher sampling rate that would have covered the range of
human hearing.

Even going up
to 22kHz it still covers quite comfortably the range of older
listeners such as myself.

**It actually covers pretty much everyone over the age of 10.

I and several others tested the range of our hearing in the Physics
Lab at college when I was about 17 or 18, and I wasn't the only one in
the group who could hear above 23KHz at that age.

So to all intents and purposes we could and
should be getting near perfect audio reproduction. But what do we
actually get? While there are some very good quality CDs available,
even of those recordings originally released on vinyl, there are also
too many examples where the sound has been ruined by over-processing.
As has been said many times before, the fault lies not in the
technology, but in the people who use it

**Duh.

Duh indeed!
--
================================================== =======
UK Residents: If you feel can possibly support it
please sign the following ePetition
before closing time of 30/03/2015 23:59:

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/71556
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

In article ,
Java Jive wrote:
As it was actually implemented it was something of a compromise,
sacrificing FR to give greater playing time, but the space available
on the prototype technology "COULD AND SHOULD" (note what I actually
wrote) have been allocated differently to give us a shorter playback
time at a higher sampling rate that would have covered the range of
human hearing.

The reasons for the original CD spec are all based around the limits of
the PCM recorders of the day - basically a semi-pro video recorder
(U-matic).

As we know from later, CD itself is capable of a longer playing time.

I doubt there's much in the way of musical information above about 15 kHz
anyway. Excepting some electronic stuff.

--
*I stayed up all night to see where the sun went. Then it dawned on me.*

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

On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 17:37:01 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

The reasons for the original CD spec are all based around the limits of
the PCM recorders of the day - basically a semi-pro video recorder
(U-matic).

As we know from later, CD itself is capable of a longer playing time.

Well that rather goes to show that it would have been better to have
chosen from the start a spec that completely encompassed the range of
human hearing, rather than one that almost does.

I doubt there's much in the way of musical information above about 15 kHz
anyway. Excepting some electronic stuff.

Are you claiming that there is no difference between Audio-Cassette,
which rolls off about there, and open-reel, vinyl, and CD, all of
which had higher roll-offs?. I suspect that most people would be able
to tell the difference immediately between the frequency response of
AC and those other types - I certainly could and still can with no
problem at all.

After some searching I've just found some AC recordings of tracks from
an album that I now have on CD, it's Barbara Dickson's seminal folk
album "From The Beggar's Banquet", 1970. The AC recordings were
originally made from a library copy of the LP, while the CD is a
re-issue of 5 or 6 years ago that I feel most fortunate to have
obtained. The difference between the two is utterly unmistakable.
--
================================================== =======
UK Residents: If you feel can possibly support it
please sign the following ePetition
before closing time of 30/03/2015 23:59:

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/71556
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

In article , Java Jive
wrote:

After some searching I've just found some AC recordings of tracks from
an album that I now have on CD, it's Barbara Dickson's seminal folk
album "From The Beggar's Banquet", 1970. The AC recordings were
originally made from a library copy of the LP, while the CD is a
re-issue of 5 or 6 years ago that I feel most fortunate to have
obtained. The difference between the two is utterly unmistakable.

Alas the LP and CD come into that if you're trying to assess AC.
Particularly if you've not heard the LP for a long time and become
habituated to the AC.

FWIW I also routinely find that an LP sounds different to a CD of the
'same' material. The problem being that this may be down to the two
versions being 'mastered' sic quite differently. Can tell you more about
the people cutting the LP or 'improving' sic again what they put on LP
than it does about the frequency response capabilities of either system.

All comes down to how much care and skill were applied when producing the
LP or CD, and to the replay systems.

A couple of days ago I made a digital copy of a 1960 LP of Schubert
symphonies conducted by Beecham. Early EMI stereo LP. The sound is lovely.
And with far fewer ticks and clicks than from later EMI LPs. On-center and
flat disc, too! Just a tragedy that as time passed EMI ceased to take care
when making either LPs *or* CDs and the results sounded worse as a result.
Bean counters were more interested in "Who cares about manufacturing
quality if we can sell them and they don't come back. How quickly and
cheaply can me make them?"

From the LPs I have I'd say that during the early 'stereo' years EMI did
make some great LPs with real care. But by the mid 1970s they simply turned
out 'product' and it was a matter of luck what you got. They relied on you
wanting to hear those artists and bits of music. The hifi mag pages
routinely carried letters bewailing the poor pressings, etc. Yet it
remained clear that a well-made LP could sound very good. Sadly, they got
harder to find!

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

Dave Plowman ( Raving Nutcase) wrote:


The reasons for the original CD spec are all based around the limits of
the PCM recorders of the day - basically a semi-pro video recorder
(U-matic).


** The CD spec was *tweaked* to be compatible with those recorders - hence sampling at 44.1kHz instead of some other very similar number. It is NOT a quality limitation.


As we know from later, CD itself is capable of a longer playing time.

** The original CD was smaller than the final 12cm dia version, chosen to increase the playing time to well over 1 hour.

44.1kHz and 16 bit gives audibly perfect reproduction plus a comfortable margin beyond. 100dB s/n and 0.005% THD are well beyond what is necessary.


.... Phil

In article ,
Phil Allison wrote:
The reasons for the original CD spec are all based around the limits of
the PCM recorders of the day - basically a semi-pro video recorder
(U-matic).


** The CD spec was *tweaked* to be compatible with those recorders -
hence sampling at 44.1kHz instead of some other very similar number. It
is NOT a quality limitation.

Never said it was. I was absolutely blown away when I attended the first
UK demonstration of CD - as were all of my colleagues.

As we know from later, CD itself is capable of a longer playing time.

** The original CD was smaller than the final 12cm dia version, chosen
to increase the playing time to well over 1 hour.

The limit of an NTSC U matic tape was also 74 minutes of programme
material. Allowing for line-up. PAL was 90 minutes.

44.1kHz and 16 bit gives audibly perfect reproduction plus a comfortable
margin beyond. 100dB s/n and 0.005% THD are well beyond what is
necessary.

Absolutely. I've never said different.

--
*I used up all my sick days so I called in dead

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