Armstrong 600 era
 

On 17/11/2015 20:53, tony sayer wrote:
In article . com,
Albert Zweistein scribeth thus
On 08/11/2015 12:21, Jim Lesurf wrote:
Just to let people know I've put up a new webpage at

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong...iliconEra.html

This documents the 1973-4 period when they released the 600 range and it
got a lot of attention. Can be interesting to compare reviews to see when
they agree and when they conflict. :-)

FWIW I'm planning two more pages.

One to deal with the 1975-1985 period which covers the dissapearance of
Armstrong as a manufacturer. This is actually quite a complex set of events
so needs a lot of details. Also covers more reviews of the 600 and those of
the 700 amps, what happened with the tuner, etc. In some ways its also a
history of what went wrong in UK manufacturing and how equipment was
reviewed and sold by retailers, etc. Some skeletons will be dug up, and
oddities in 'reviews' examined. 8-]

The other page is to document more extensively the 'radio chassis era' from
1932 to about 1960. During this period Armstrong made a lot of different
models, some without their name or logo on the front! I'm still working
though old references, magazines, etc, to sort this out!

However I'm also doing some work to try and build a decent website for the
Museum of Communication, so it will take a while to do the above pages.



Below is a quote from your page at
http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong...airandmod.html
'And listening to Radio 3 or 4 using the FM tuner demonstrates how much
nicer these can sound via FM than via DAB.'
I quite agree but would you say this is a result of the low bit rate the
bbc uses or is an indication of the inherent superiority of analogue vs
digital sound reproduction?


Around the best these days is the high rate net feed.

FM is still processed apart from the limitations of the FM system and I
think at the moment BBC R3 DAB is at 160 K instead of the 192K it ought
to be at!.

Penny pinching at the BBC so the bosses can pay themselves inflated
salaries...come the revolution etc.

Armstrong 600 era
 

On 09/11/2015 08:59, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article . com,
Albert
Zweistein wrote:



Below is a quote from your page at
http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong...airandmod.html 'And
listening to Radio 3 or 4 using the FM tuner demonstrates how much
nicer these can sound via FM than via DAB.' I quite agree but would you
say this is a result of the low bit rate the bbc uses or is an
indication of the inherent superiority of analogue vs digital sound
reproduction?

Alas I can't give a simple yes/no answer to that question because there are
a number of differences between FM and DAB in practice. Couple of examples:

FM tends to add some low order distortion, and also intermod, particularly
for stereo. Caused by the limited bandwidth, etc.

BBC FM has *level* compression applied in a different way to DAB. So the
dynamics are likely to be different. My impression is that this tends to
make the FM sound 'warmer' as it acts a bit like a 'sustain' pedel.


I wonder why human ears prefer the sound of a bit of 'sustain'? I
certainly do.

Armstrong 600 era
 

In article . com,
Albert Zweistein wrote:
On 09/11/2015 08:59, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article . com,
Albert
Zweistein wrote:



Below is a quote from your page at
http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong...airandmod.html
'And listening to Radio 3 or 4 using the FM tuner demonstrates how
much nicer these can sound via FM than via DAB.' I quite agree but
would you say this is a result of the low bit rate the bbc uses or is
an indication of the inherent superiority of analogue vs digital
sound reproduction?

Alas I can't give a simple yes/no answer to that question because
there are a number of differences between FM and DAB in practice.
Couple of examples:

FM tends to add some low order distortion, and also intermod,
particularly for stereo. Caused by the limited bandwidth, etc.

BBC FM has *level* compression applied in a different way to DAB. So
the dynamics are likely to be different. My impression is that this
tends to make the FM sound 'warmer' as it acts a bit like a 'sustain'
pedel.


I wonder why human ears prefer the sound of a bit of 'sustain'? I
certainly do.

Have a mate who constantly goes on about how much better FM is than
digital.

So set up a test for him. Three tuners all on R3 - one FM, one DAB, one
Freeview. Levels carefully balanced. A long silent pause when switching
between them - so the delay on digital didn't give the game away.

He failed miserably to distinguish which was which. ;-)

--
*The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on my list.

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

Armstrong 600 era
 

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes

So set up a test for him. Three tuners all on R3 - one FM, one DAB, one
Freeview. Levels carefully balanced. A long silent pause when switching
between them - so the delay on digital didn't give the game away.

He failed miserably to distinguish which was which. ;-)

Without wishing to be deliberately provocative, I think that result
applies to many tests, such as LPs/CDs, valves/solid state etc. Whilst
accepting that there are those with finely tuned ears who will pass the
test, I'm quite sure I wouldn't.

Recent fun has been resurrecting my turntable (TD125/SME3009) and having
great fun playing LPs that I have not duplicated on CD, and have not
heard for too many years. However, were I to play the same album on
vinyl and CD, I doubt I could tell the difference.
--
Graeme

Armstrong 600 era
 

In article , News
wrote:

Recent fun has been resurrecting my turntable (TD125/SME3009) and having
great fun playing LPs that I have not duplicated on CD, and have not
heard for too many years. However, were I to play the same album on
vinyl and CD, I doubt I could tell the difference.

Depends on the LP/CD. e.g. Many rock/pop CDs of recent years have been
level-compressed heavily compared to their earlier LP versions. The
challenge would be to find CDs that haven't been mucked about like this
compared with the LP.

And alas, many early CDs may have been very badly made in other ways.

The problem with arguments about the 'inherent' audible differences is the
ways in which the music biz fouls up real world examples of both LPs and
CDs. Means the playing field isn't flat.

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

Armstrong 600 era
 

On 27/11/2015 13:13, News wrote:
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes

So set up a test for him. Three tuners all on R3 - one FM, one DAB, one
Freeview. Levels carefully balanced. A long silent pause when switching
between them - so the delay on digital didn't give the game away.

He failed miserably to distinguish which was which. ;-)

Without wishing to be deliberately provocative, I think that result
applies to many tests, such as LPs/CDs, valves/solid state etc. Whilst
accepting that there are those with finely tuned ears who will pass the
test, I'm quite sure I wouldn't.


No, I'd agree. Partly training, partly hearing, partly stress. And
doubtless a variety of other factors contribute to such tests and their
'truths'.

Recent fun has been resurrecting my turntable (TD125/SME3009) and having
great fun playing LPs that I have not duplicated on CD, and have not
heard for too many years. However, were I to play the same album on
vinyl and CD, I doubt I could tell the difference.

Ooh, not sure about that :-)

--
Cheers, Rob

Armstrong 600 era
 

On 27/11/2015 15:52, RJH wrote:
On 27/11/2015 13:13, News wrote:
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes

So set up a test for him. Three tuners all on R3 - one FM, one DAB, one
Freeview. Levels carefully balanced. A long silent pause when switching
between them - so the delay on digital didn't give the game away.

He failed miserably to distinguish which was which. ;-)

Without wishing to be deliberately provocative, I think that result
applies to many tests, such as LPs/CDs, valves/solid state etc. Whilst
accepting that there are those with finely tuned ears who will pass the
test, I'm quite sure I wouldn't.


No, I'd agree. Partly training, partly hearing, partly stress. And
doubtless a variety of other factors contribute to such tests and their
'truths'.

Recent fun has been resurrecting my turntable (TD125/SME3009) and having
great fun playing LPs that I have not duplicated on CD, and have not
heard for too many years. However, were I to play the same album on
vinyl and CD, I doubt I could tell the difference.

Ooh, not sure about that :-)

I'd have thought the snap crackle and pop would give one away. Not that
I've owned or listened to a vinyl player for about 35 years so maybe the
new ones have some anti-snaclepop built-in.

Armstrong 600 era
 

In article ,
News wrote:
Recent fun has been resurrecting my turntable (TD125/SME3009) and having
great fun playing LPs that I have not duplicated on CD, and have not
heard for too many years. However, were I to play the same album on
vinyl and CD, I doubt I could tell the difference.

It's usually easiest towards the end of an LP where the lower velocity
between disc and stylus shows up the inherent problems rather more.

--
*CAN VEGETARIANS EAT ANIMAL CRACKERS?

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

Armstrong 600 era
 

On 28/11/2015 00:32, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
News wrote:
Recent fun has been resurrecting my turntable (TD125/SME3009) and having
great fun playing LPs that I have not duplicated on CD, and have not
heard for too many years. However, were I to play the same album on
vinyl and CD, I doubt I could tell the difference.

It's usually easiest towards the end of an LP where the lower velocity
between disc and stylus shows up the inherent problems rather more.


Don't follow that - I'd have thought the distance travelled would be
less, but the disc speed the same? Actually, having written that I start
to get it (disc/stylus-time/distance), but I thought the inner groove
thing was related to tracking anomalies caused by the geometry of the
various bits.

Anyhoo, and FWIW, I've found that 'inner groove' poor quality sound
could be all but solved by certain types of cartridge. Not sure why/how,
but in my case an AT 440, and AT OC5

--
Cheers, Rob

Armstrong 600 era
 

In article , RJH
wrote:
[snip inner groove distortion]

Don't follow that - I'd have thought the distance travelled would be
less, but the disc speed the same? Actually, having written that I start
to get it (disc/stylus-time/distance), but I thought the inner groove
thing was related to tracking anomalies caused by the geometry of the
various bits.

It occurs for both reasons. In principle, you can deal with the tracking
geometry with something like a parallel-tracking or articulated arm. But
the groove 'wavelength' for a given frequency still reduces as you get
nearer the center as the actual velocity (in m/s) falls. Thus the wall
curvature increases and 'pinches' the stylus.

Anyhoo, and FWIW, I've found that 'inner groove' poor quality sound
could be all but solved by certain types of cartridge. Not sure why/how,
but in my case an AT 440, and AT OC5

Stylus shape is critical here. And also being able to track at low playing
weight to avoid groove deformation for the best shapes in geometric terms.
These don't prevent a rise in end-of-side distortion, but can reduce how
severe it becomes.

Its a shame none of the current hifi mags ever print full explanations of
such 'technical' issues. I've been going though my early Hi Fi News issues
putting together a searchable index.[1] And they are full of careful and
detailed explanations of such matters. Alas the work by Kelly, Crabbe,
Walton, etc, seem to be long out-of-print. Maybe time for a new book or
some reprints.

Also, the old mags had lots of DIY/constructional features which - even if
you never built them - are a mine for info for anyone wanting to understand
such details. Again, such things are hen's teeth these days. :-/

Editor's seem to have decided that such things would frighten off
wooden-header readers. Personally, I suspect some would be put off, but new
readers would be attracted.

Jim

[1] If anyone wants a copy there is a zip of a csv version here
http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/temp/HiFiNewsIndex7.zip
As yet only up to volume 7 and I lack most of volume 1. But I am
slowly adding more volumes.

--
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