Fixed it. Thanks for pointing out the typo. Took me a couple of passes to see it. Weird how the brain fills in the blanks?
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Trying to understand the turntable/vinyl world...
- Thread starter skymusic20
- Start date
JP
Major Contributor
And in this instance the vast majority contributing to actual discussion in this and other vinyl threads are very educated and fully understand the weaknesses of the medium. As if choosing to listen to vinyl despite all its weaknesses is any less rational than striving for another dB of SINAD when the threshold of audibility was passed long ago. There is far less disillusionment/misunderstanding/snake oil in these threads than most others here.
Totally agree. And his advocacy of Ted Denney (no relation) magic things undermines everything he might say. I couldn’t take him seriously after that.
But there seems a pretty wide gulf between that and reasoned discussions we could have about how to get the most from the technology for those who want to pursue it.
Rick “not seeing that getting the most from it is either unscientific or an assertion that other technologies don’t perform better in absolute terms” Denney
Last edited:
Cote Dazur
Addicted to Fun and Learning
That would be sweet, looking forward to it. A thread to share, educate and celebrate about a medium that can bring emotion and satisfaction to hifi veteran and new comers, when done right, with wide open eyes (ears) and reasonable expectations. Long live ASR.
???
Adam, We have never tried to force anyone into anything. From my seat I only see many posts debating about wholly subjective postings stating how much better vinyl sounds than digital and why it does so.
What I do see is some tring to force the voice of truth and science into silence.
A few here will admit that digital is technically and measurably better but then continue to go on and on about the hows and whys it sounds subjectively better. So the debate goes on. Exact Same situation as people posting the exact same things about their cables or any of the rest of it, isn't it?
Many here were members of other forums where they had cable, power cord etc, threads that we were banned from posting any scientific data in because of "Can't we be left alone to discuss the sounds of X without these meter-heads ---.blah blah blah..
So is that what you propose to do here, ban the posting of scientific truths and allow the "meterbrigade haters" to post how much we're full of "baloney" without any question or opposition.
I've been here since day 3 of ASR and can't see how in any way this can be done in the spirit of ASR?
Maybe a heavier moderation hand towards those that can't find a way to accept the posting of scientific truths while at the same time being done in a courteous manner from both sides is more in order.
Last edited:
Why don't you just start the thread?
Newman
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2017
- Messages
- 3,508
- Likes
- 4,345
It would really be my hope that any such, moderated-vinyl-maximisation-without-constant-reference-to-digital threads, would welcome science-based correction to scientifically incorrect postings, including wild claims about sound quality. Example: “all direct drive TTs sound bland and lifeless, so you really need a rim drive to get PRAT”… etc etc x1000
Hey, the thread title could be, “Maximising vinyl playback: how to finish fourth and feel like a winner!”
Cote Dazur
Addicted to Fun and Learning
How about “music from the dark sides” .Hey, the thread title could be, ”Maximising vinyl playback: how to finish fourth and feel like a winner!”
By the way, I just went back and reviewed the OP and the first few pages of posts. The OP had a few hundred old LPs that he wanted to be able to play, but didn’t want to get sucked into what seemed like a vortex of foolishness. I thought he got pretty good advice on a modest approach that would meet his needs and get the most from a constrained budget. In no way did I see the OP as a rejection of the very idea of preserving a way to keep his old collection in use.
So, I think his needs were met with balanced, fact-based responses that acknowledged the limitations of any strategy. He probably left happy and got good ASR service.
Science is frequently used to study archaic technologies, if for no other reason than to gain insight into what previous generations overcame in the pursuit of high fidelity. That study actually does more to refute the later myth and lore foolishness than any bald rejection of it now. That’s the insight gained by pursuing its limits using data-driven science, in spite of its obsolescence.
Illustrative story: I have over the years built a high-precision measurement capability, but with a commitment to avoid batteries and software. That means I have acquired vernier calipers, outside micrometers, bore gauges, inside micrometers, dial indicators, dial test indicators, gage blocks, precision squares and parallels, a precision granite surface plate, depth micrometers, master bores, and so on. Here’s the joke (and the joke is definitely on me): I really don’t have anything I need to measure at that level of precision (and I can measure stuff to 0.0001” and some things to 0.00005”). Why in the world would I have that stuff? On occasion I do need it, and I relish the skill to use it, for no other reason than the joy of expressing that skill.
These days, a machinist will use a digital micrometer that requires no special skill to read, but I had no interest in that. He won’t even need that, because he’ll trust his CNC mill and lathe. Maybe it’s a character flaw. But it sure gives me insight into what prior generations could do. We went to the moon with those old Etalon, Starrett, Interapid, and Brown & Sharpe calipers and indicators. And the insight that stuff gives me includes, among other things, an intimate understanding of significant figures and the difference between accuracy and precision. Those principles are often lost on those using 10-digit calculators to dimension stuff that can only be made accurately enough to need three.
Rick “science and history get along just fine” Denney
So, I think his needs were met with balanced, fact-based responses that acknowledged the limitations of any strategy. He probably left happy and got good ASR service.
Science is frequently used to study archaic technologies, if for no other reason than to gain insight into what previous generations overcame in the pursuit of high fidelity. That study actually does more to refute the later myth and lore foolishness than any bald rejection of it now. That’s the insight gained by pursuing its limits using data-driven science, in spite of its obsolescence.
Illustrative story: I have over the years built a high-precision measurement capability, but with a commitment to avoid batteries and software. That means I have acquired vernier calipers, outside micrometers, bore gauges, inside micrometers, dial indicators, dial test indicators, gage blocks, precision squares and parallels, a precision granite surface plate, depth micrometers, master bores, and so on. Here’s the joke (and the joke is definitely on me): I really don’t have anything I need to measure at that level of precision (and I can measure stuff to 0.0001” and some things to 0.00005”). Why in the world would I have that stuff? On occasion I do need it, and I relish the skill to use it, for no other reason than the joy of expressing that skill.
These days, a machinist will use a digital micrometer that requires no special skill to read, but I had no interest in that. He won’t even need that, because he’ll trust his CNC mill and lathe. Maybe it’s a character flaw. But it sure gives me insight into what prior generations could do. We went to the moon with those old Etalon, Starrett, Interapid, and Brown & Sharpe calipers and indicators. And the insight that stuff gives me includes, among other things, an intimate understanding of significant figures and the difference between accuracy and precision. Those principles are often lost on those using 10-digit calculators to dimension stuff that can only be made accurately enough to need three.
Rick “science and history get along just fine” Denney
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2022
- Messages
- 1,116
- Likes
- 1,400
I have no issue with anyone correcting factually wrong information. I would not want a maximizing vinyl thread where that wouldn’t be tolerated. I appreciate most of your contributions on this forum. However, both you and Newman have payed into me pretty hard when I have never in fact claimed that vinyl sounds objectively or subjectively better. I did say my wife likes it better. You’re welcome to come over and tell her she is wrong. I have only ever stated that it can sound very, very good. Good enough that the gap between it and my calibrated lossless setup doesn’t hinder my enjoyment of the music.
Hey, I have Dark Side of the Moon on vinyl.How about “music from the dark sides” .
But vinyl wasn’t the worst. Cassettes have that honor.
Rick “who has a Nakamichi cassette deck, too” Denney
I may be a bit slow, but I'm not stupid.
If you feel unfairly treated I apologize.
It can be hard to remain smooth when being attacked by a large group for simply stating facts.
We are getting a number of complaints about this thread folks. I am tempted to close it down for good.
For now, I thought OP's post while long and confusing, seemed to make a reasonable point. That for some content, LP was his preferred format. This should not be a contentious point as mastering of LP can make it sound better than loudness compressed/mastered CD. I know I prefer some of my R2R music to their digital counterpart. This kind of discussion should not turn into superiority of one format vs the other.
OP also asked some questions about the cost of the turntable vs digital. That discussion shouldn't have included any food fight.
Bottom line, if this is just a food fight of one format against the other with people getting upset over it, we should just close the thread. Otherwise, I suggest we let folks talk about the peaceful side of the topic which are the two points above that I got out of the OP.
For now, I thought OP's post while long and confusing, seemed to make a reasonable point. That for some content, LP was his preferred format. This should not be a contentious point as mastering of LP can make it sound better than loudness compressed/mastered CD. I know I prefer some of my R2R music to their digital counterpart. This kind of discussion should not turn into superiority of one format vs the other.
OP also asked some questions about the cost of the turntable vs digital. That discussion shouldn't have included any food fight.
Bottom line, if this is just a food fight of one format against the other with people getting upset over it, we should just close the thread. Otherwise, I suggest we let folks talk about the peaceful side of the topic which are the two points above that I got out of the OP.
I salute you for your expertise., I did the same thing but back in my day the digital measuring tools didn't exist, or if they did only the big corps could afford them. But you'd never survive in todays market with those old, slow, comparatively inaccurate, tools.
Time and technology marches on
When you are in the electronic domain - yes everything done here is focused on high fidelity...That is an incorrect statement on so many levels.
You don't seem to have learned anything yet here
But the parts of it that are in the acoustical domain - from Mic and miking methods, through cartridges, to speakers not so much.
To define high fidelity, you have to define how you measure it... no one has defined how to measure (mic) an acoustical instrument in a manner that ensures that it can be reproduced by a set of amps and speakers, and can be psycho-acoustically identical to the original performance of that acoustical instrument. - Achieving this has a heap to do with miking and mastering techniques.... and just as much to do with room acoustics, speaker design and signal processing at the room and speaker level.
One of the key things here is that the high fidelity measuring stick is just as much driven by PSYCHO acoustics - ie: perception / subjectivism
If you want to approach it in a purist objective manner - High Fidelity could potentially be defined by placing a mono mic at a predetermined distance from a set of speakers, where it is intended to reproduce the acoustical signature recorded originally by a mono mic at the acoustical event.
The resulting secondary recording would be compared to the primary recording, and could then be graded in various ways.
Ideally the recording in both instances should be done Binaurally (ie: dummy head, with mic in the ear)
This way you would potentially have a measure of "High Fidelity" - how useful this would be in analytic terms, as a tool to target improvements in that chain, would be quite a different and open question!
One of the advantages of such an approach, would be that it does not require anything fancy.... it could be the tester standing and reading out a sentence. More complex and less frequency limited sources, would be more challenging... but getting the human voice 100% right is already a feat beyond many purportedly high fidelity systems!
One of they key points, is that it is a differential measure - ie: you have included everything, and not merely measured using any specific artificial signal - it is a recording of an acoustic space and event at a point in time - compared to an attempt to reproduce the same acoustic experience at a later time.
If the original recording is NOT of an acoustic space - eg: it is a purely or partly synthesised soundtrack - whether by use of electronica, or due to the method of miking and mastering - then you have nothing to compare it to. - There is no yardstick.... - You can maintain the waveform/soundtrack produced by the mastering - you can measure it and endeavour to reproduce it correctly all the way to the amplifiers.
But once you hit the acoustic domain - the speakers - there is no way of determining whether or not it is high fidelity - it never previously existed in a purely acoustic space.... (other than possibly at the mastering studio or the mastering engineers headphones!) - there is no possible way to define whether or not it is indeed high fidelity (question being of course, fidelity to what?)
Slower, no doubt. More accurate? Actually, not. The ability to measure a millionth of an inch was invented (by the head watchmaker for what has become Patek Philippe) something like 175 years ago. Only optical interferometry has improved on that for manufactured objects, and that also predates the digital age.
My gage blocks are accurate to 5 millionths, and those are vintage steel objects that were not that expensive for working machinists in the day.
But it surely is faster, and that’s enough to make it economically necessary in most commercial settings.
That said, there are still manual machinists who earn a good living. CNC is fast for new parts but repairing old parts for industry is still a thing.
Rick “a dilettante: all micrometer and no lathe” Denney
Last edited:
Humm,
So if I listened to a wax cylinder, a 78, a LP, and a modern digital file, I couldn't measure or tell which is more High Fidelity or true to the original performance, than the other? This discussion has passed beyond the ridiculous, I'm done.
Problem there is only one human on earth had that skill. LOL
Similar threads
